Sitting of 27 April 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  HFC BANK BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Diabetes Screening
    Mr. David Stewart: When he expects to receive advice from the United Kingdom screening committee on targeted diabetes screening. [80989]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): At the last meeting, on 17 March, the national screening committee agreed that a major focus of its work for the coming year would be to consider the case for a co-ordinated approach to screening for cardiovascular disorders, diabetes and the complications of diabetes. I hope that the committee will be able to make recommendations to Ministers by the end of this year. From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful reply. He will be aware that diabetes is the main reason for blindness in under-65s. It contributes to half the lower-limb amputations in Scotland and consumes more than £2 billion of national health service resources in the UK as a whole. Does he share the view of the British Diabetic Association and its American counterpart, which have argued for a focused screening approach to diabetes to protect the high-risk groups such as the over-40s, the overweight and those with a family history of the disease? Does he share my view that early action and intervention is vital to fight what has been described as Scotland's silent killer?
    Mr. Galbraith: First, I acknowledge once again my hon. Friend's interest in this matter and the tremendous contribution that he has made to the debate, to the benefit of all those involved. I do not want to prejudge the screening committee's conclusions, but it is important to tackle the serious complications of this disease. That can be done, in many cases, by making the diagnosis early.
    126
    As my hon. Friend knows, we are committed to the St. Vincent declaration to cut by a third end-stage renal failure due to diabetes, and diabetic retinopathy and blindness due to it, and to cut by half limb amputations due to peripheral vascular disease. That is a good package and he is to be congratulated on being partly responsible for pushing the issue for so long.

    Scottish Parliament (Steering Group)
    Mr. John Maxton: If he will make a statement on the work of the consultative steering group on procedures for a Scottish Parliament. [80991]
    The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): The consultative steering group on the Scottish Parliament held its final meeting on 12 March. I have written to the Secretary of State outlining the group's further recommendations on the matters considered, including recommendations on the code of conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament and the relationship between the Parliament and the media.
    Mr. Maxton: First, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as this is his last Scottish questions, on the sterling work he has done over the past few years. In particular, I congratulate him on the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and on the victory that he and the Labour party will win on 6 May.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the work done by the consultative steering group in looking forward to a new, democratic, open Parliament for the 21st century, rather than looking back, as some people do, to some mythical Parliament of 1707. Does he agree that the innovative use of new technology that has been proposed for the Parliament, including electronic voting, should set an example that this place would do well to follow? Does he agree that if it is possible to introduce electronic voting in such an old building, which will be used only temporarily, it should be possible to do so in this place as well?
    Mr. McLeish: I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. The Scottish Parliament will be fit for the information age and it will have new technology. In the longer term, it may influence other institutions in the United Kingdom. On 1 May 1997, the United Kingdom voted for a Parliament. On 11 September, we in Scotland voted for a Parliament. On 6 May, the Labour Government will deliver a Scottish Parliament to the Scottish people.
    Mr. John Swinney: What implications do today's revelations that secret deals have been struck in London to carve up the Scottish Parliament have for the cross-party consensus that has underpinned the work of the consultative steering group? Is not that further evidence that Scotland's Parliament under new Labour will be Scotland's Parliament taking London's orders? Scotland needs a Parliament run by Scotland's party, delivering for the people of Scotland.
    Mr. McLeish: That pathetic contribution reflects the fact that the hon. Gentleman's party is not doing well in

    127
    the current election campaign in Scotland. We had an all-party consensus on the work of the consultative steering group, which should be welcomed on both sides of the House, but suggesting that one party is Scotland's party shows contempt for the Scottish people. Scotland will decide on 6 May which party it wants to deliver the Parliament, and I am in no doubt that the Labour party will be chosen in those elections.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: Perhaps I should begin by apologising for not congratulating the Secretary of State on anything much at all. Has the Minister explained to the consultative steering group why there is no provision for recounts at regional level in the Scottish elections? [Interruption.]
    Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friends, from a sedentary position, suggest that we might not need them. This has been explained to the Conservatives, who say that we did not address the issues when they were raised. The reason is sensible and straightforward: one simply cannot have the recount that they envisage for an additional member system. More to the point, the election will be fought hard by the Scottish people on 6 May. We have no doubt that they will take it seriously—and it is high time that, if the Conservatives in Scotland are taking it seriously, the Conservatives in this House did so as well.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Peter Viggers: If he will make a statement about the impact of the minimum wage on the Scottish economy. [80992]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): It is estimated that the national minimum wage will benefit 2 million workers in Britain as a whole, and 157,000 in Scotland. The Low Pay Commission has statutory responsibility for monitoring and evaluating the introduction and impact of the minimum wage and is expected to report to the Government on it in December 1999.
    Mr. Viggers: What is the Government's answer to the extra unemployment, estimated at 10,000, that will be caused in Scotland by the minimum wage? Will welfare to work use public money to subsidise people back into employment?
    Mr. Macdonald: I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's estimate. What I do know is that the claimant count in Scotland now is the lowest since 1976. That is an achievement by this Government which people in Scotland widely recognise. The national minimum wage is an important part of the Government's strategy to target poverty and to achieve a fairer society in Scotland, and we shall continue to develop and build on those policies.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Scottish people are extremely proud that we have delivered the minimum wage, among many of our other promises? They are particularly pleased that the Labour party did it in the face of opposition from the Conservatives and with the Scottish National party tucked up in bed? Let us take, for example, the tourist industry, which was represented on the independent commission that
    128
    made recommendations to the Government. Does my hon. Friend accept that, far from deploring a minimum wage, that industry welcomes it because it wants a well-trained, motivated and well-paid staff, consistent with the Scottish traditions of fairness, decency and a refusal to exploit those who seek to serve us?
    Mr. Macdonald: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The national minimum wage was a landmark achievement by the Government in their bid to create a fairer society in Scotland. It was achieved against the opposition of the Conservatives and it is regrettable that the SNP did not even bother to turn out to vote for the national minimum wage, which has delivered benefits to people on low incomes in Scotland.
    Mr. Michael Moore: While agreeing with the Minister that the minimum wage is an important development for Scotland, does he accept that the 14,000 job losses in Scotland since the general election are a damning indictment of the Government's record, and that, with so much of Scotland's economy dependent on exports, an early commitment to a single currency is essential for the country?
    Mr. Macdonald: I certainly do not want to minimise the impact of any job losses on the families or individuals concerned, but the hon. Gentleman and his party should recognise that there has been a net gain in jobs in Scotland since the last election. As I said, unemployment in Scotland is at its lowest rate since 1976. That is a significant achievement, and all credit for it is due to the efforts of, and economic policies followed by, this Government.
    Dr. Gavin Strang: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a disgrace that under the Tories so many Scots worked for poverty pay? Will he confirm that 157,000 Scottish employees will benefit from the statutory national minimum wage, which, complemented by the working families tax credit, the 10p income tax rate and a reduction in national insurance contributions, will help to ensure that work pays?
    Mr. Macdonald: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The national minimum wage is only part of our strategy to tackle poverty. Taken together with, for example, the working families tax credit, which he mentioned, it means that the effective minimum wage for, say, a single earner with two children is not £3.60 but £7 an hour. That is an important contribution to tackling poverty among low-earning families.
    Dr. Liam Fox: The Government's figures on the Scottish economy show unemployment rising by 1,200 last month and 16,000 fewer jobs in Scotland than there were a year ago. Why does the rise in unemployment in Scotland account for half the rise in the United Kingdom as a whole? Why is the Scottish economy performing so badly compared with the rest of the United Kingdom? What measures will the Minister take to deal with the special problems that seem to be afflicting the Scottish economy under Labour management?
    Mr. Macdonald: The claimant count for March was 5.6 per cent., which is exactly the same percentage rate

    129
    as for February. That is the lowest since 1976, which is a huge achievement by the Government. There have been particularly large reductions in youth and long-term unemployment. We are not complacent about those achievements, and we intend to build on them in the future.

    Lockerbie
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What representations the Crown Office has received from the Dutch legal authorities over the handling of circumstances surrounding the trial of the Lockerbie suspects. [80993]
    The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): Although no such representations have been received from the Dutch legal authorities, my noble Friend the Lord Advocate and I have been very pleased with the constructive co-operation of the Dutch legal authorities in ensuring the orderly and secure handover of the two Libyan accused to the Scottish authorities in the Netherlands.
    Mr. Dalyell: Has the Lord Advocate followed accepted good prosecution practice by making provisional lists of Crown witnesses and productions available to the defence in advance of service of the indictment? If he has not already done so, does he intend to do so in the near future? If he does not so intend, what are his reasons?
    Mr. McLeish: The Crown Office has already supplied to the defence a provisional list of witnesses, detailing a substantial number of the witnesses who may be cited to give evidence at the trial. In addition to that, a large number of copy documentary productions that may be adduced in evidence at the trial have also been offered to the defence. Further provisional lists of witnesses and copy productions will be made available to the defence in due course in the discharge of the prosecution's duty to provide such material. This matter is now sub judice.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Minister give the House an estimate of what he understands to be the likely cost of the trial itself and the charge to the legal aid fund from public funds? The cost of the trial and the likely level of legal aid support will be substantially greater than normal. Are those sums to be met out of the usual Scottish Office vote or has a special arrangement been made with the Treasury?
    Mr. McLeish: I cannot give the right hon. and learned Gentleman specific details of the amount of funds involved, but I wish to do so and will pass them on to him. The sourcing of the funds will be from within the legal aid budget. We obviously want to consider the extent of the legal aid involved in such a case.

    Modern Apprenticeships
    Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: How many modern apprenticeships the Government intend to create in Scotland. [80994]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): The Government set a target of 15,000 modern apprenticeships by 2002 in the lifelong learning paper
    130
    "Opportunity Scotland", published in September 1998. There are currently 10,500 modern apprentices in training, and 67 modern apprenticeship frameworks have been approved in Scotland. From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
    Mrs. McKenna: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should celebrate the impact that modern apprenticeships and the new deal are having on many thousands of young Scots? What plans does he have for modern apprenticeships under the Scottish Parliament, of which he will be the First Minister?
    Mr. Dewar: I never anticipate events; I am a cautious man. I am not sure that it is right for me to speculate in this House on what that Parliament may do. Those who read carefully the public prints will know that the figure of 20,000 as a target for modern apprenticeships has been mooted, and it seems to me to be a splendid idea. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we expand higher and further education and increase skills in other parts of the economy if we are to compete effectively. Modern apprenticeships have been a real success as part of the skill seekers programme, and there is widespread support for the expansion of that provision.
    Mr. Shaun Woodward: Given that the new deal has so far managed to fail 60 per cent. of those participating, and given the Secretary of State's appalling, abysmal record of job creation—7,000 jobs were lost in Scotland last year, and 16,000 in the first year—would not the right hon. Gentleman do better to recognise that, rather than pushing yet another hopeless scheme of apprenticeships—and having imposed more than 2,500 extra regulations and £3.5 billion in extra taxes—the Government should get out of businesses' hair and let them create real jobs?
    Mr. Dewar: I fear that the hon. Gentleman, poor soul, has been listening to the Scottish Conservatives. That is a great mistake. I do not recognise the figures that he gave. Let me make a serious point. The new deal has been a remarkable success, and has received widespread support from employers in Scotland—not initial support that has tailed off, but support that has been maintained and has grown over the months. It has had a remarkable impact on the unemployment rate among 18 to 24-year olds, which has halved over the period.
    Of course there will be failures. The clients have difficult records; otherwise, they would not need to be involved in the new deal. However, the flexible gateway, the dedication and positive approach of the Employment Service and the co-operation between employers and the voluntary sector have produced real benefits and gains for Scotland.
    If the hon. Gentleman examines the record of this Labour Government, he will see that since we came to office the number of people employed in Scotland has risen by about 17,000, while the number of those unemployed has fallen by 35,000. I recognise the difficulties; I recognise that parts of the economy are experiencing genuine problems. The situation is not helped, however, by a Greek chorus of misery from

    131
    Conservative Members, which I do not think can be any excuse for the fact that the hon. Gentleman is not often seen in Scotland.
    Mr. Jim Murphy: My right hon. Friend will know that many young people in Scotland have been cynical about previous Tory schemes. Does he share my concern, and that of my young constituents in Eastwood, about the way in which the Scottish National party has sought to exploit that concern and cynicism by undermining the new deal?
    The new deal has undoubtedly been a success. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that, as part of his drive to increase the skill level and to give young people in Scotland fresh opportunities, the new deal will not be replaced by modern apprenticeships, but the new deal and the modern apprenticeships vision will work in tandem to unlock the potential of many thousands of young Scots?
    Mr. Dewar: I have no difficulty in agreeing with my hon. Friend about that. There are some 38,500 skill seekers in Scotland at present, 72 per cent. of whom are receiving a wage. I believe that the concept of skill seekers has been a success, but it is true that we must work, through skill seekers and in other ways—on other fronts on which the new deal is won—to try to achieve an interlocking pattern of provision. We need to skill and encourage our people into the labour market, so that they can have the dignity and, importantly, the wages that go with regular employment.
    I do not want to be too difficult about the cynicism of the SNP at the moment. I see that the party is represented by one lonely outpost today. Lest any of my hon. Friends should say anything nasty, let me add that we should have some consideration for those who are worried about their seats.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the job increases to which he rightly adverted have been mainly in the service sector, and that they have involved mainly part-time jobs? Will he further acknowledge that a real contribution to manufacturing industry can be made through modern apprenticeships? Will he give a guarantee that the central industries, such as the textile industry, that can be assisted by such apprenticeships will be properly consulted? Will he look carefully at the German model, in which there is a close relationship between schools, industry and trade unions, in doing what he can to assist manufacturing industry north of the border in the future?
    Mr. Dewar: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of the interface between school education, further education and industry. Of course he is right in saying that there have been problems in manufacturing industry, but I do not think that those problems are unique to Scotland. It was encouraging to see the last quarterly report of the Bank of Scotland, which suggested that some sites were viable and could be improved. I have no doubt that there will be disappointments before we surmount the present difficulties, but the framework generally is encouraging, and it was important that we were able to announce a substantial input of financial services jobs a few weeks ago.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be fair about this. If he considers the successful efforts to preserve the Longannet deep mine over the past few weeks, and the
    132
    work of Gavin Laird and his colleagues in the task force to deal with the difficulties in the shipbuilding industry, 1 think—or I would like to think—that he would be one of the last Liberal Democrats to accuse us of inattention or indifference to the problems.

    Further and Higher Education
    Ms Rachel Squire: What steps the Government are taking to improve access to further and higher education in Scotland. [80996]
    The Minister for Education, Scottish Office (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Last month, we announced major steps to improve access to further and higher education. We challenged further education colleges to widen access to under-represented groups—a challenge that we are backing with more than £100 million, which will create an additional 40,000 places for such students. In higher education, in the next three years we expect to spend £60 million on measures to help widen access for students from less-advantaged backgrounds, and particularly to assist low-income or disabled people to study part-time. From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
    Ms Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous system of funding further and higher education failed to reach the majority in our most deprived communities and to give them access to educational opportunity? Because of the Government's introduction of the Scottish grant for widening access, and the partnership between Fife council community services and Lauder college, I had the pleasure of opening a learning centre in High Valleyfield, which is a former mining community in my constituency that has some of the area's highest levels of deprivation and unemployment. Since January, 115 people have applied for courses, the range of which is being expanded, and some people are considering establishing a community business.
    Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to all those who have been involved in the centre? Does she agree that it is a step-by-step example of how the Government are delivering lifelong learning and giving people new skills, greater belief in themselves and real hope for a better future?
    Mrs. Liddell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her involvement in the High Valleyfield project. I have visited a number of projects in Fife that testify to the accuracy of her comments. The Government are committed to widening access, especially for those who are particularly disadvantaged. On higher education—which has a proud record in Fife—I have been talking to the Higher Education Funding Council for Scotland, encouraging it to examine means whereby premiums could be paid to higher education institutions that make particular efforts to enlarge the number of people from disadvantaged communities who attend those institutions.
    Dr. Liam Fox: When, 16 days before the general election, the Prime Minister uttered the words:
    "Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education",
    what did he mean?
    Mrs. Liddell: Prior to the general election, the Prime Minister was awaiting the result of the Dearing

    133
    committee, which was established by the previous Government. I deplore the scaremongering of opposition parties in trying to dissuade people from entering applications to higher education institutions. Last year, there was a 4 per cent. increase in the number of those entering higher education, and there are now two applications for every higher education place in Scotland. It is deplorable that one party in Scotland is determined to ensure that those who are most disadvantaged in information technology and do not have access to computers should have to give up that opportunity so that tuition fees might be removed for those who are the wealthiest, coming from families who earn more than £35,000 a year. We are in favour of widening access.
    Dr. Fox: It is a pity that the right hon. Lady—with such an ability to reinterpret political history—has become the invisible lady of the Scottish election campaign. The truth is that within a couple of months of uttering the words that I quoted, the Prime Minister announced a £3,000 tax on learning and the abolition of the student maintenance grant. Moreover, in complete contrast to what the Minister has just told us, there has been a 12.8 per cent. reduction in the number of Scottish students applying to go to Scottish universities. The numbers are already going down. After the Government's betrayal of Scottish students, we cannot believe a word that they say on education in advance of the Scottish elections.
    Mrs. Liddell: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman refers to me as the invisible lady; my diet must be working. To the invisible man, whom we have not seen during the Scottish election campaign, I say that as there are no Conservative Members of Parliament for Scotland, he might at least have felt able to join in the collective apology from his colleagues in Scotland to the Scottish people for the policies of the previous Government.
    Forty per cent. of students from low-income families pay no tuition fees, and only a minority pay the full fees. As a consequence of the Government's policies, there will be more places in higher education in Scotland. Our aim is to have 750,000 young people in further and higher education in Scotland—a considerable achievement, and a great improvement on the record of the previous Government.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: May I assume from my right hon. Friend's answer that the Government will never consider benefiting better-off tertiary education students by plundering millions of pounds from schoolchildren and divorcing them from computers, as is proposed by the Scottish National party, which is scarcely represented here today?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is no surprise that the Scottish National party is scarcely represented; it seems likely to be even less well represented in future.
    I visited Clackmannan primary school yesterday, where I saw primary 4 pupils working on computers as part of the success makers programme, which gives an opportunity to those who, perhaps because of their parents' lack of income, do not have access to information and communications technology. Those will be the skills required in the 21st century, and although I am aware
    134
    that the Scottish National party has a great affection for Scotland's history, I regret that it expects our children to live in Scotland's past.

    Secretary of State (Responsibilities)
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland after the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. [80998]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): The role of the Secretary of State for Scotland after devolution was described in our White Paper, "Scotland's Parliament". The Secretary of State will be expected to promote good communication between the two Governments and Parliaments in Edinburgh and London, to represent Scottish interests in reserved matters within the United Kingdom Government, and to exercise certain specific responsibilities under the Scotland Act 1998.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that courteous reply. Does he accept that devolution will bring about a massive transfer of power from his Department to the Scottish Parliament, not least in such major policy areas as agriculture, health and education? Bearing in mind the fact that this House will still make a major contribution through revenue support, can he tell us how Scottish Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, and this House, will clearly monitor such matters?
    Mr. Dewar: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on going to the nub of the matter with uncharacteristic speed. He is absolutely right—devolution represents a massive transfer of power. That is the point of the exercise, and on this side of the House we are rather proud of it.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that there is a logical and strong division of responsibility between Westminster and the devolved Parliament in Edinburgh. Each will have areas in which its writ runs. To those on our side of the argument, including me, that seems a sensible arrangement. Of course, there are important matters, fiscal matters among them, that will remain at Westminster. Scottish Members of Parliament who represent Scottish interests in the House will not lose their tongues, or their interest in what is happening, and I suspect that they will closely and properly scrutinise such matters.

    Oil and Gas Industry
    Miss Anne Begg: What measures his Department is taking to assist the oil and gas industry in Scotland. [80999]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): The Government have set up the oil and gas industry task force under the chairmanship of the Minister for Energy and Industry, who is based at the Department of Trade and Industry, to examine the key issues facing the industry and to produce recommendations for action by the summer.

    135
    My noble Friend Lord Macdonald, the Scottish Office Minister responsible for business and industry, is vice-chairman of the task force, and Scottish Office officials sit on the main task force group and on three of the working groups.
    Miss Begg: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to note that the people from the oil industry in Aberdeen with whom I have had contact are pleased with the setting up of the oil and gas industry task force, and speak highly of the progress made so far. Can he confirm that the Labour Government will continue to support the oil industry, which is the major employer in my constituency, and will not treat it as some kind of "liquid plug" to fill the gap in Scotland's finances that would be caused by the Scottish National party's plans for divorce?
    Mr. Macdonald: I am pleased to hear that the task force is being well received. It is working hard, and includes representatives from industry and the unions, as well as from the Scottish Office. It was set up in the context of a 25-year low in oil prices but, although the price of oil is rising now, it is very important that we continue to support the task force and enable the industry to compete in very tight international markets.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister explain what will happen to the functions of the Department of Trade and Industry with regard to the oil industry? My constituency has the largest oilfield in the European Union, but will it have to rely on civil servants in Aberdeen to decide certain aspects of oil policy? Will we have to ask the Scottish Parliament, to which oil policy may be devolved, for details of what is happening in the oil industry in Dorset?
    Mr. Macdonald: Energy policy will remain a reserved matter. I am sure that there will continue to be good co-operation between the Scottish Office and Westminster on that policy, as on all other issues.
    Mr. David Marshall: I was one of many Labour Members who visited the Kvaerner Govan shipyard last Friday. We all wholeheartedly supported the upbeat and optimistic presentation from management and shop stewards. Does the Minister agree that that excellent yard has a future, and will he say whether the task force will be able to put any oil and gas work the yard's way, to enable it to overcome its short-term difficulties?
    Mr. Macdonald: I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend and other Labour Members have visited the yard and talked to management and unions. I am sure that that will have been a boost to the morale of the work force. We have set up a task force to examine how to find prospective buyers for the yard. It is working extremely hard, and I am sure that we all wish it every success.
    Sir Robert Smith: I welcome the task force and acknowledge that it is working hard and constructively, but it will be judged by the outcomes that it achieves. The Minister has said that the oil price is rising, but will he assure the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has learned the lesson of the Government's first two years in power,
    136
    and will not regard the higher oil prices as an excuse to re-examine the tax regime and increase taxes on the oil industry?
    Mr. Macdonald: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor but, through the task force on the oil and gas industry, we will examine a range of measures to support and develop the oil industry, some of which are already being implemented.

    Sexual Assaults
    Mr. Harry Cohen: How individuals who have (a) been victims of and (b) committed male rape are dealt by the judicial system within Scotland. [81000]
    The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): The term "male rape" does not exist in Scots criminal law. A man who forces another man to have non-consensual sexual intercourse with him would face charges of indecent assault and sodomy. The penalties for such offences are limited only by the court in which they are tried—that is, up to life imprisonment for a case heard in the High Court. The needs of victims of sexual assault are increasingly recognised by the agencies in the criminal justice system, which provide support as appropriate.
    From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply; he has written to me previously to the effect that male rape is a foreign concept in Scots law. However, given that it is not a recognised criminal offence in Scotland, there is no point in reporting incidents or providing official trauma counselling for victims, and perpetrators are not brought to justice. Male rape is recognised in England and Wales as a specific criminal offence: does not that mean that, in this instance, the law in England and Wales is superior to that in Scotland?
    Mr. McLeish: I appreciate my hon. Friend's contribution to the debate in England and Wales over the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to which he refers. However, as I said, Scots law does provide for the offences of indecent assault and sodomy. We in Scotland see no need to change the current definitions, and we consider that the common law of Scotland is sufficiently flexible.
    In addition, we are doing a great deal in Scotland to help the victims of all crime, and I have just completed a consultation report on the matter of intimidated and vulnerable witnesses. I assure my hon. Friend that indecent assault and sodomy are covered by Scots law, and that we are also doing a great deal for victims of crime and for intimidated witnesses.

    Economic and Monetary Union
    Dr. Julian Lewis: When he last met representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses to discuss economic and monetary union. [81001]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): My right hon. Friend last met the Federation of Small Businesses on 21 April. Economic and monetary union did not feature on that occasion, but the federation is a member of the Scottish EMU co-ordination group, which is taking forward business preparation in Scotland for EMU. The group last met on 12 April.
    From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
    Dr. Lewis: I am sorry to hear that economic and monetary union did not feature on the agenda of that meeting. Had it done so, small businesses would have been able to inform the Secretary of State of their overwhelming opposition to the abolition of the pound and its replacement by the euro. They might also have drawn to his attention the result of last month's ICM poll, which shows that 30 per cent. of the population are in favour of EMU, but 60 per cent. are against. That makes a 2:1 majority, and it marks a 6 per cent. increase in the majority against EMU since last October when the same question, with the same wording, was asked. Does that not show that the Government are wasting their time trying to brainwash people into abandoning our currency and merging our economy with that of the European continent?
    Mr. Macdonald: There are different views in the business community. The Scottish CBI, for example, supports the principle of UK membership when the economic conditions are right, and that reflects the Government's position. We are preparing industry for the possibility of that decision, and the Federation of Small Businesses is playing a constructive and positive part in preparations.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does my hon. Friend agree that economic and monetary union will be attractive to Scottish businesses when they are able to appreciate the full import of the competitiveness White Paper, which contains a range of opportunities and assistance for small business? In addition, small businesses depend on large businesses operating alongside them. Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of small businesses in my constituency on the work done by the Secretary of State and Lord Macdonald of Tradeston to smooth the path to ensuring the future of coal mining at Longannet? A multitude of jobs depend on the mine, both in Longannet and in the industries and small businesses in west Fife and Clackmannanshire that depend on it.
    Mr. Macdonald: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the Government are pursuing a range of measures to help small businesses. We certainly do not need a penny increase in income tax, which would severely affect many unincorporated small businesses.
    Mr. Desmond: Is the Minister aware that polling evidence reveals that although small business men are overwhelmingly against economic and monetary union, they nevertheless have a sense of its inevitability? In other words, they fear that people less intelligent and informed than themselves may vote for it.
    Mr. Macdonald: The Federation of Small Businesses has set out its views in a press release, saying that
    "the FSB is not telling its members to ignore EMU and stick their heads in the sand and hope that it will go away. It won't."
    The hon. Gentleman might take that advice.

    Crichton Estate (Dumfries)
    Mr. Russell Brown: What plans he has to assist with the development of the Crichton estate in Dumfries as a base for higher education provision. [81002]
    The Minister for Education, Scottish Office (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Some £1.8 million has been awarded jointly to the universities of Glasgow and Paisley by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council to develop higher education provision at the Crichton site. The first students will be admitted to courses in September, and there are plans to have 500 undergraduate places there by 2001–02.
    From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who fully appreciates the significance of the site as both a future business terrace and a university campus. Will she confirm that, as a Government priority, new information technologies, such as the national grid for learning, will be embraced to provide educational opportunity to rural communities in Scotland?
    Mrs. Liddell: I can confirm that, step by step, we will ensure that the national grid for learning is developed throughout Scotland. Scotland's higher education institutions are already linked. We are also rapidly developing the university of the highlands and islands. With the development of broad-band information technology for the higher education sector, we are proceeding apace to introduce it to schools and further education institutions.

    Scottish Parliament
    Sir Teddy Taylor: What steps he will take to advise hon. Members of the activities and decisions of the Scottish Parliament. [81003]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): The Scottish Parliament will be expected to publish an official record of its proceedings and a journal recording its decisions. Those have been provided for in its initial Standing Orders as contained in the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions (Standing Orders) and Parliamentary Publications) Order 1999, which was laid on 12 April. I am not sure that that was the most exciting answer that I have ever given, but as it may be my last—at least in this capacity—I hope that it helped the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Some of us consider that the devolution business will end up as a costly and divisive shambles, but obviously, we pray that we are wrong as 1 July approaches. What steps does the Secretary of State believe should be taken to encourage co-operation between the two Parliaments? What will he be answerable

    139
    for in the House of Commons? Does he see any meaningful role for Scottish Members in Westminster after devolution?
    Mr. Dewar: Of course there is a role for Scottish Members in Westminster. The hon. Gentleman may think that fiscal affairs, foreign affairs, macro-economics, defence, labour law and all the things that would preserve the integrated and level playing field for business in this country are unimportant, but I do not. Scottish Members will be here to represent Scottish interests and their constituents' interests, as they are now, in respect of those important matters. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about lack of co-operation. He and I have been shouting abuse at each other for about 30 years, and he will want to ensure that that level of admirable co-operation continues.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Minister of State was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Low-Income Clients
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What plans he has to ensure that low-income clients will have full and appropriate access to legal advice. [81019]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Government's proposals for legal aid reform will ensure that scarce financial resources are targeted on the people and cases that most need them. We will treat as a priority cases involving social welfare and public interest issues, many of which are likely to involve people on low incomes. That will be supported by the creation of the community legal service, which will make legal help and advice more readily available from a wider range of sources.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the poorest people are often concerned about debt, housing, welfare benefits and racial discrimination, which fall outside the ambit of legal aid? Will he confirm his commitment to me to develop those services within the community legal framework? Does he agree that solicitors might better spend their time developing such services within that system for those people, rather than spending £700,000 on a misleading, wasteful, scaremongering advertising campaign?
    Mr. Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government's plans for the community legal service will target help on those most in need. In particular, we will establish social welfare cases as a priority, which will help people to avoid, or climb out of, social exclusion, especially in cases involving people's basic entitlements to a roof over their heads or appropriate social security benefits. That will mean that poorer members of society will benefit from the reforms as they are precisely the people likely to be involved in such cases.
    Mr. John Burnett: Does the Minister agree with me and many others, including many Labour Members, that access to justice for
    140
    low-income clients would be greatly enhanced if the Government were to remove the ban on personal injury legal aid in schedule 2 of the Access to Justice Bill?
    Mr. Hoon: I have made it clear repeatedly to the hon. Gentleman that there is a limit to the money that any Government can devote to legal aid. In deciding priorities within that limit, it is important that we focus resources where the money can do most good. If there is a well-established system of conditional fees that is operating well—as there is—whereby people with personal injury cases can obtain representation effectively and efficiently, it is only right that the money that would otherwise go to fund such cases is channelled into the creation of a community legal service to help the most vulnerable in society. I have explained that to the hon. Gentleman many times before.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: How then will the Minister ensure—indeed, guarantee—that someone without money who does not have access to a conditional fee arrangement because he cannot afford the insurance premiums necessary to underpin one will be able to prosecute a personal injury claim outside the field of clinical negligence?
    Mr. Hoon: The Government are confident that people with good cases will always find lawyers, insurance companies or others willing to fund the initial up-front costs, including the cost of an insurance premium. Many people already have access to a trade union scheme, under which their cases can be taken forward without any up-front funding. Many such schemes are being extended to include the relatives of trade unionists. A range of different schemes will be available. May I suggest something quite revolutionary to the hon. and learned Gentleman? Perhaps the lawyers will be willing to fund the up-front costs, because they will benefit from the profits that they make from winning the good cases.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Can my hon. Friend assure us that the case featured in the Law Society advertisement, of a black man who claims that he has been beaten up by the police and imprisoned, would qualify under his proposals for aid and support? Does he agree with the editorial in today's Evening Standard that the Law Society's claim for our sympathy is genuinely comical and that its advertisement is irresponsible scaremongering?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Law Society seems to have chosen four cases to highlight problems with legal aid in which we have made it clear that legal aid will not be affected. It is irresponsible of the Law Society to spend its members' money on running such a campaign. It is disgraceful that it is frightening people into thinking that they may lose entitlement that the Government have repeatedly made clear that they will still have.

    Magistrates Courts
    Mr. Bob Russell: How many magistrates courts have closed since 1 May 1997. [81020]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): In the period from 1 May 1997 to 31 March 1998, 25 magistrates courts were officially closed following decisions taken by local magistrates courts committees. Since then, I am aware of 12 other courthouse closures against which appeals were lodged and subsequently dismissed.
    Mr. Russell: When will the Minister stop the pretence that local communities are advocating the closure of their magistrates courts? Does he accept that in every case, a quango—the magistrates courts committee—has recommended the closure? In most cases, the local democratically elected councils, county councils and/or political parties oppose the closures. How many more courts does the Minister intend to close while he holds his current office?
    Mr. Hoon: I have repeatedly answered this question as well. I have made it clear that the process of closure is laid down in law and is scrupulously followed. It requires a determination by a local magistrates courts committee that a courthouse should close. The only role that my Department has in resolving such matters is in hearing the appeal against closure, which is taken forward only if a local paying authority decides to appeal. If the local paying authority chooses not to appeal, which happens from time to time, the Lord Chancellor's Department has no involvement.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: In that case, would my hon. Friend like to look closely at the powers of the Lord Chancellor's Department? Frankly, there is not a lot of point in the Government's advocating through environment and transport policies the sensible placing of basic services, such as magistrates courts, in the centre of communities if there is a continuing programme of closure, over which my hon. Friend has no influence. Will he please have a word with some of his colleagues and point out that this is just a little tiny bit illogical?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that it is illogical, but I accept that it is important that the Government continue to review the powers available to them and ensure that there is appropriate access to justice for all our citizens.
    Sir David Madel: The Minister listened courteously to the arguments over the proposals to shut magistrates courts in Biggleswade, Ampthill, Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard put to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and myself. We represented our constituents and powerful local views on the matter. Will he explain why our strong arguments were brushed aside and why the decision has been taken to shut down those four magistrates courts? It was the wrong decision.
    Mr. Hoon: I want to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that his arguments were not brushed aside. Indeed, he made a most powerful case. Each appeal is considered on its own merits; the Department follows the procedure laid down in legislation for which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman voted when it went through Parliament. As I pointed out earlier, the responsibility of
    142
    the Lord Chancellor's Department is simply to consider the merits of the particular case put to it by the local paying authority and the local magistrates court.

    Magistrates
    Helen Jones: What progress has been made in making the magistracy more representative of the communities which it serves; and if he will make a statement. [81021]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Following research into how best to improve recruitment of magistrates from a broad spectrum of the community, the Lord Chancellor launched a national publicity campaign to raise awareness that it is open to most people to apply. The campaign finished recently; it resulted in more than 13,000 inquiries. The Lord Chancellor's advisory committees have continued to undertake recruitment initiatives at a local level.
    Helen Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and for the progress that has been made. Does he agree that, if magistrates are to be truly representative of the communities that they serve, we need more people serving on the Bench who are in employment, as well as those who are self-employed or retired? Will he tell the House what steps his Department will take to encourage employers to support their employees who are willing to undertake that service, and to end the situation, which prevails in large parts of my constituency—and in other constituencies—in which people feel that they will be penalised at work if they put themselves forward to be magistrates?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right. The research demonstrated that far too many people rule themselves out of applying. Undoubtedly, one of the reasons is that, if they are in employment, they do not believe that they will be given appropriate time off. We need to put across the idea that almost anyone may apply to become a magistrate. It is only when we receive applications from—I hope—some of the 13,000 people who have made inquiries during our campaign that we shall have a more representative magistracy.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman return to his office, examine the letters that are sent to those who have just retired from the magistracy and ask himself whether that sort of letter will encourage others to join? He will see that people are told all the things that they are not allowed to do when they retire from the Bench—including keeping in touch with all the friends with whom they previously worked in the magistracy. I hope that he will consider that matter very seriously.
    Mr. Hoon: I have not read a copy of such a letter, but I undertake to do so. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if I am concerned about the contents.

    Commonhold
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: What progress he has made on reform of commonhold law; and if he will make a statement. [81022]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Government are committed to introducing commonhold. Many of the issues that are included in the consultation paper on leasehold reform published recently by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will affect how we proceed with commonhold. We expect to learn the results of the DETR's exercise very soon and shortly after that, I shall announce how we plan to take forward proposals for commonhold.
    Mrs. Lait: I welcome the snail's pace of progress on the introduction of commonhold. Is the Minister aware that the new build of small flats in Beckenham is proceeding apace, and that people are having to buy under the outmoded leasehold system? Does he agree that new build is the best area in which to introduce commonhold, and will he please give me some assurance that he will introduce commonhold as speedily as possible for new build?
    Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Lady criticises the pace of progress made by the Government on that matter. At least, we are going forward with those proposals. My recollection is that the previous Government withdrew
    144
    their proposals, because they could obtain no support for them. Certainly, we are anxious to make progress; it is important to build on the work that is currently being undertaken by the DETR. As the hon. Lady is aware, commonhold is intended to overcome the problems faced by people who live in developments with a long leasehold. Until we have a clear idea of how we can make progress on reform to leasehold, there is no point in setting out precisely what we intend to do with commonhold.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend recognise that many millions of people who live in outdated leasehold properties believe that the system should be consigned to the dustbin of history and that a modernising Government, such as the current Labour Government, should embark on reforming legislation as soon as possible? The consultation period has finished, so will he give an assurance that action will be taken within the lifetime of this Parliament?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend and I were both elected on a manifesto that contained a commitment to introduce commonhold, and I am sure that the Government are keen to ensure that every aspect of that manifesto is implemented within the lifetime of this Parliament.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last Thursday, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food answered an oral question on Meat Hygiene Service inspection charges, saying that the Government
"have proposed no charges and consulted on no charges; no one has had an invoice involving a 1 per cent. increase, a 1,000 per cent. increase or any increase."—[Official Report, 22 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 1034.]
On Friday morning, I visited a Leicestershire abattoir owned by Joseph Morris, who had received that very morning a letter from the MHS confirming that the increase in the charges he must pay for visits by official veterinary surgeons employed by the MHS would rise by more than 100 per cent., backdated to 22 March. Do you agree, Madam Speaker, that the Minister should explain to the House at once whether he knew what the MHS was doing when he answered that question; and, if he did not know, why not?
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that that is not a matter for me. From what he has said, I have no doubt that he will raise the matter directly with the Minister concerned.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Both in questions to the Prime Minister yesterday and during the debate, the question was repeatedly asked as to what would happen if Russian ships were to be apprehended, either in the Mediterranean or in the Adriatic. Have you had any request from Downing street, the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence to address that question?
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there to be a statement today on the continued violence, the murders and the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo? Those acts cause tremendous distress to hon. Members—certainly to Labour Members and, I hope, to Opposition Members as well—and it would be interesting to know whether a statement is to be made as soon as possible.
Madam Speaker: I must inform both hon. Gentlemen that I am not aware that a statement is to be made today, but I know that the Government are aware of those matters. Ministers make statements to the House as often as they are able to and I want them to continue to do that.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD WASTE
    Mr. Jim Cunningham, supported by Mrs. Christine Butler, Mr. Alan Hurst, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. Piara S. Khabra, Dr. Ashok Kumar and Mr. David Taylor, presented a Bill to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to require waste collection authorities to provide receptacles for recyclable and non-recyclable household waste on demand: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 May, and to be printed [Bill 90].

Regulations on Small Businesses (Reduction)
3.33 pm
Mr. John Bercow: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the quantity of regulations on businesses below a certain size.
Businesses employing fewer than 100 people constitute 99.6 per cent. of Britain's firms, employ 50 per cent. of the private sector work force and produce two fifths of national output. In preparing today's Bill, I have met or spoken to Stephen Alambritis of the Federation of Small Businesses, Alison Beer of the Forum of Private Business, Ruth Lea of the Institute of Directors, Colin Perry of the small firms council of the Confederation of British Industry, Lucy Miller of the British Chambers of Commerce and Maurice Fitzpatrick, head of economics at the leading firm of chartered accountants in the City, Chantrey Vellacott. All of them agree that the burden of regulations on small business is high, continues to rise and needs to be checked or reversed.
In April 1997, the then shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), declared in the foreword to Labour's business manifesto:
"We will not impose burdensome regulations on business, because we understand that successful businesses must keep costs down."
Nineteen months later, his right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) told the House
"we have no intention of introducing any legislation that presents a burden on business and reduces the competitiveness of British firms."—[Official Report, 25 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 214.]
Sadly, only weeks after the first statement and fully 18 months before the second, the Government began the process of betraying that pledge, which has so far resulted in an extra 2,400 regulations since 1 May 1997.
The working time directive will reduce the flexibility of small businesses to respond to the demands of customers in an increasingly competitive marketplace. The notice of implementation of that directive—a mere 45 days at the height of the summer season—was little short of a national disgrace. The national minimum wage will add £2.7 billion a year to this country's wages bill and will hit small and medium-sized enterprises especially hard. Once again, notice in the form of guidance to employers—which was issued a mere three weeks before the national minimum wage was to take effect—appeared to many to be a calculated insult to businesses.
Whatever their intrinsic merits or demerits, the working families tax credit, the child care credit, the disabled persons learning credit and the student loan repayment administration regulations all shuffle responsibility from central Government to beleaguered businesses, forcing the latter to become unpaid tax collectors and benefit distributors. If small businesses make mistakes in the process, they can expect to incur hefty fines.
The move to self-assessment in relation to transfer pricing threatens to impose an onerous burden of record keeping and documentation on small firms regardless of whether they trade much or little on a cross-border basis. Consistent with other Inland Revenue regulation of late, those companies are obliged to prove that they are innocent of any transgressions of the regulations. They can do that only through an extensive and expensive paper trail, which could otherwise be avoided.

147
A flat rate of £90 a year has been levied to pay for the introduction of the Food Standards Agency. As my right hon. and hon. Friends know, the possibility that that levy could rise to up to £600 per year is a source of growing anxiety to the 263 corner shops in the Aylesbury Vale district council area that incorporates my Buckingham constituency. Above all, the new Meat Hygiene Service regulations—entailing onerous veterinary inspection requirements—represent a devastating blow to small abattoirs, independent butchers and local country markets the length and breadth of rural Britain. The Government have opted for a particularly onerous interpretation of the original European Union directive on that subject, and the meat industry and consumer choice will suffer as a result.
What are the financial costs and other effects of the phenomenon of burgeoning regulation that I have described? The pressure of this regulation on small businesses is remorseless. The pain is intense, but the benefits seem to be negligible. It is astonishing to learn that the Government have not published—and according to a parliamentary answer from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, they do not intend to publish—a statement on the cost of regulations. Fortunately, the Institute of Chartered Accountants has obliged. It informs us that the extra cost for the average small business with fewer than 100 employees as a result of Government legislation introduced since 1 May 1997 is no less than £5,000 a year.
Chantrey Vellacott—the firm of esteemed accountants to which I referred earlier—calculates that the increase in the regulatory burden since the general election is 17.33 per cent. My right hon. and hon. Friends will note that that is before we have taken account of the contents of the Employment Relations Bill, which will add significantly to existing costs. That is the scale of the damage that is being inflicted.
What hope is there? Regulation is damaging to small firms, which bear a disproportionate burden of the fixed cost that is entailed. The effect of regulation undoubtedly will be to divert small owner-managers from business, to stifle growth, to reduce competitiveness, to destroy jobs and to force businesses to close. They will go bankrupt or they will close as individual proprietors give up the unequal struggle against the regulatory leviathan.
148
What can be done? My Bill proposes a number of simple but helpful measures. First, there should be an annual statement to Parliament on the cost of regulation and the Government's plans to reduce that cost in the ensuing year. Secondly, there should be six-monthly reports on the progress of deregulatory initiatives. Thirdly, there should be a review of all existing legislation to find out where there is harmful gold-plating of European Union directives which can sensibly and helpfully be removed.
Fourthly, there should be a power in all future legislation to exempt small businesses from the most damaging regulations along the lines of the American model, with which the House will be familiar, which is provided for in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996. Fifthly, a system of sunset regulation should be instituted, whereby a regulation automatically expires or lapses on a given date, perhaps three or five years after its original enactment, unless Parliament chooses to renew it. That system works very well at state and federal level in the United States.
The sixth proposal is that there should also be a minimum three months of consultation on each new regulation and a minimum three months' notice of intended implementation of a new regulation, to give businesses time to prepare.
The sea of regulation is now deeper and more hazardous than any with which businesses have previously had to contend. The Government, I regret to say, are lacerating small businesses. My hon. Friends and I want to liberate those businesses. The Bill is a positive step in the right direction at an opportune time, and I appeal to the House to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Bercow, Mr. Graham Brady, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Christopher Chope, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr. Andrew Lansley, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. Owen Paterson, Mr. David Prior, Mr. David Ruffley and Mr. Richard Spring.

Regulations on Small Businesses (Reduction)
  REGULATIONS ON SMALL BUSINESSES (REDUCTION)
  Mr. John Bercow accordingly presented a Bill to reduce the quantity of regulations on businesses below a certain size: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 May, and to be printed [Bill 89].
Orders of the Day
  Finance Bill

    (Clauses Nos. 2, 28 and 99)
    Considered in Committee.
    SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

    Clause 2

      HYDROCARBON OIL DUTIES
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      3.44 pm
      The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): Clause 2 increases the rate of duty on petrol, diesel and other fuels.
      Diesel duty is now 3p per litre more than the duty on unleaded petrol, to remove diesel's advantage when considering energy and carbon content per litre. The differential is also in recognition of the fact that diesel is more harmful to health than petrol because of the particulate and nitrous oxide emissions associated with it.
      We have, however, further increased the incentive for ultra-low sulphur diesel by increasing the duty differential over conventional diesel from 2p to 3p per litre. That increase, if passed on to the consumer, should make ultra-low sulphur diesel cheaper at the pump than conventional diesel, and should further encourage the manufacture and use of that cleaner fuel. The duty rate for ULSD is now the same as that for unleaded petrol. Cleaner diesel already accounts for 70 per cent. of sales. By the end of this year, thanks to the duty changes that we are making, it could account for almost all of diesel sales in this country, with clear benefits for the environment. Similarly, the duty on road fuel gas has been reduced by 6.13p to 15p per kg—a reduction of 29 per cent. That reduction reflects the considerable environmental benefit of road fuel gas over other road fuels, especially diesel.
      Gas-powered vehicles emit significantly fewer pollutants than those that use petrol or diesel. The Government hope that the substantial reduction will encourage manufacturers to increase the distribution and availability of that environmentally friendly fuel, and that the lower price to the consumer will help to offset the cost of vehicle conversion.
      The duty on higher octane unleaded petrol, also known as super unleaded, is increased to 52.33p per litre. However, the duty rate will be cut to 49.21p per litre—2p above the unleaded rate—from 1 October 1999. It may be useful if I explain why.
      The current duty rate on higher octane unleaded petrol is close to that of leaded because it contains high levels of benzene, which is a known carcinogen. Benzene levels in petrol, however, will be regulated from 1 January 2000, so there will no longer be a health reason for distinguishing between rates of duty on unleaded and high octane unleaded petrol. However, lead replacement petrol, which is to be introduced in the second half of this year, is dutiable as higher octane unleaded petrol, and will mostly be used in older cars, which are less fuel efficient
      150
      and environmentally friendly than newer cars running on unleaded petrol. On that basis, therefore, it is right to apply a higher duty rate, if not as high as previously.
      The duty cut will take effect from I October 1999, to facilitate the introduction of lead replacement petrol, allowing the industry time before 1 January 2000, when leaded petrol is banned, to sort out its supply logistics. I know that that is a concern, especially for those with older cars.
      The clause therefore continues the policy, introduced by the previous Government, of increasing duties on road fuels by more than the rate of inflation. The fuel duty escalator was formally introduced by a Conservative Government in 1993, in an effort to meet the commitments that they made at the Rio earth summit. The present Government are continuing to use the escalator for similar reasons—because it will help us to meet the commitments that we made at Kyoto.
      Mr. John Hayes rose—
      Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours rose—
      Mr. Milburn: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
      Mr. Hayes: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we are discussing a cumulative problem? The escalator may have been introduced by a previous Government, but that means that there is no obligation on the present Government to continue it. Will he at least give an assurance to those who are most worried about increases—especially people in rural constituencies such as mine, for whom cars are a necessity, not a luxury—that the increases will not continue year on year? The implication of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that the escalator will be used ad infinitum.
      Mr. Milburn: I intend to discuss rural areas and the special transport needs of people living in the countryside. Very often, for such people, a car is a necessity rather than simply a luxury.
      The hon. Gentleman asks about the continuation of the escalator. We made it perfectly clear in the Budget report this year that, as the Chancellor said in his 1997 July Budget, road fuel duties would be increased on average by at least 6 per cent. in real terms in future Budgets. That was the stated position in the Red Book; it remains the position today.
      Mr. John Swinney rose—
      Mr. Campbell-Savours rose?—
      Mr. Milburn: May I take one intervention at a time? I give way to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: About three weeks ago, I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport whether some research might be done on transport costs per tonne per mile in each European country, including the United Kingdom.

      151
      I believe that that is the statistic that matters, because it will show that costs for British hauliers are now substantially higher than those of their European counterparts. I have been elected to represent a constituency 300 miles from London, from which freight must be carried to the major conurbations. That distance creates substantial on-costs for industry, and those calculations and that research are important. Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether that work is being carried out? If it is, will the Government take the results on board if they reveal what I suspect?
      Mr. Milburn: I am aware, first, that a variety of statistics are connected with the road haulage industry, in particular, those relating to the impact of the fuel duty escalator and, secondly, that my hon. Friend questioned my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport about it at Question Time about a fortnight ago. I understand that my right hon. Friend replied positively. If that is the case, I am sure that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is looking at precisely the issues that my hon. Friend asked it to look at.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand that the Department may be doing that, but I want to know whether Treasury Ministers are involved in that research and whether they are prepared to respond if it shows what I believe to be true—that British hauliers, irrespective of the KPMG report and all the other issues, are paying more. I am deeply disturbed, because of the on-cost for companies in my constituency, which is 300 miles from London.
      Mr. Milburn: At the danger of starting on the wrong foot—
      Mr. John Bercow rose—
      Mr. Milburn: May I answer one question at a time? I know that the hon. Gentleman is very keen in such debates, but can he contain himself for a moment?
      It is important that, on this issue, we do not reinvent the wheel. If my hon. Friend the Member for Workington has put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport—[Interruption.] Conservative Members have finally got the pun. If my hon. Friend has put the issue to my right hon. Friend and he has agreed to look at it, I am sure that he will do precisely that. The issue is properly the preserve of the Department with which my hon. Friend raised it.
      Mr. Swinney rose—
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown rose—
      Mr. Bercow rose—
      Mr. Milburn: I shall give way to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) and will take the other interventions later.
      Mr. Swinney: I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for giving way. I return to the point raised by the hon.
      152
      Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) about the continuation of the fuel duty escalator. Saturday's edition of The Daily Telegraph carried a report that the Chancellor had been somewhat stung by the reaction to the fuel duty escalator and was considering not applying it in future Budgets. The Chief Secretary's reference to what was said in the Red Book seemed to contradict that report. Will he clarify what the Government intend and whether the fuel duty escalator will be applied in future Budgets?
      Mr. Milburn: If there is a choice between believing what is in the Red Book and what is in The Daily Telegraph, I know which I would opt for. It is a matter for the Scottish National party—[Interruption.] Well, we know where the Opposition stand, but perhaps they and the SNP are in bed together on this issue; that is for the SNP and the Conservative party to sort out between themselves.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
      Mrs. Angela Browning rose?—
      Mr. Bercow rose—
      Mr. Milburn: Who is next? I give way to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown).
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for giving way. Following up the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), will he confirm that not only has he increased the fuel duty escalator from the originally proposed 5 per cent. to 6 per cent., but that the increase is cumulative? Value added tax is imposed on top of that 6 per cent., amounting to a cumulative increase of about 6.2 per cent. every year. Over 10 years, that would double the duty on diesel. Will he also confirm that the Conservatives, when they introduced the fuel escalator, were committed to its operation only until 2000? The Government have committed themselves to the regime until 2002.
      Mr. Milburn: I shall come back to some of the figures that are being bandied about by the hon. Gentleman, and by other Conservative Members, in a moment, but I remind him that Conservative Members were elected on a manifesto at the general election. Indeed, the Conservative party published what it called a green manifesto, which Conservative Members presumably considered to be binding for the remainder of this Parliament. In that manifesto the Conservatives stated:
      "We need to balance the freedoms the car provides and its impact on our environment … We will continue to encourage the manufacture of more fuel-efficient vehicles through annual increases in fuel duties."
      I presume that that was a promise for the duration of this Parliament. If so, it is yet another promise that the Conservative party, this time in opposition rather than in government, has broken.
      Mr. John Hume: Does the Chief Secretary realise the damage that the rise in the cost of fuel is doing to Northern Ireland, above all other areas, particularly to the border regions? For example, in my constituency,

      153
      for £100 one can buy 139 litres of diesel, but if one goes a mile down the road one can buy 229 litres. Four-star petrol costs 77p a litre in my constituency, where as one mile down the road it costs 62p. Unleaded petrol costs 70p in my constituency, whereas one mile down the road it costs 53p. That is wiping out petrol stations throughout our area. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to do something about that?
      Mr. Milburn: I am well aware of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises in relation to Northern Ireland. The Government and Customs are both aware of the illegal trade that takes place between the Republic and Northern Ireland. We are also aware of the problems that the illegal trade causes for traders in the north of Ireland. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and if it would help him and his colleagues, Treasury Ministers would be happy to meet him to hear about his constituents' concerns. I should be happy to organise that as soon as is convenient to him.
      Mr. Bercow: The Chief Secretary should know perfectly well that the Conservative party was not committed to percentage increases in the fuel duty escalator at the time of the election. I am happy to parley the point with him at any stage. Does he not accept that the Paymaster General, who is sadly not in her place, has a good deal of explaining to do about why she vigorously opposed the introduction of the escalator at 5 per cent., but is a fanatical enthusiast for it at 6 per cent.?
      Given the Chief Secretary's concerns about the dangers of social exclusion, what constructive remark can he make to my 81-year-old constituent, Mrs. Zettl, who lives in the high street of Buckingham and who is infuriated by what has happened? As an elderly pensioner, she works for local charities that cannot afford to reimburse her, and her social life will be greatly undermined as a result of the Government's inconsiderate policy. What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say to her?
      Mr. Milburn: What passes between the hon. Gentleman and his constituent is clearly a matter for him. However, I advise him to point out the relative impact of the fuel duty escalators applied by previous Conservative Governments and by the Labour Government. I shall come to that issue in a moment or two. The crux of it is that the increases in prices that took place under the previous Conservative Government, particularly in diesel, far exceed the increase that has taken place under this Government.
      Several hon.Members rose—
      Mr. Milburn: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and then I must make some progress.
      Mrs. Browning: May I press the Chief Secretary on the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)? I have a Devon constituency, where road haulage and distances are critical. It is a matter for the Treasury, whatever the outcome of the inquiry about costs by the Department for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions. We are trying to get a feel for how responsive the Chief Secretary is to the plight of the road haulage industry. Can we take it that he does not agree with the comments of the hon.
      154
      Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), who told the House last month that the road haulage industry was run by the biggest load of whingers under the sun?
      Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Lady is well aware, the Government and the road haulage industry are working in partnership, through the road haulage forum. That is an extremely sensible way to deal with the issues. It is certainly preferable to the disruption that we have seen on the streets of some of our major cities in recent weeks. I hope that no right hon. or hon. Member would condone such disruption. We are considering the competitive position of the industry in discussions with the road haulage forum. We made good progress at our first meeting, and in so far as is possible we shall address the concerns of the industry. I say in all candour to the hon. Lady that that dialogue is far more profitable for the industry than the disruption that we have seen from a minority of militant hauliers who want to hold our inner cities to ransom.
      4 pm
      Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Milburn: No. I have given way I do not know how many times, and I want to make some progress.
      The Government are continuing to operate the escalator because it will help us to meet the commitments that we made at Kyoto. We all have a part to play in helping to meet those legally binding obligations. Because of the escalator, urban air quality will improve and greenhouse gases will be reduced by between 2 million and 5 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2010. The quality of air in urban areas in particular will be improved because of that. Nationally, road transport is responsible for almost a quarter of particulate emissions and almost half the nitrogen oxide emissions. Diesel is the worst offender, which is why the clause widens the differential between it and other fuels.
      Until last week at least, the Opposition supported the escalator. They maintained and increased it. The shadow Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), was one of its leading proponents. Incidentally, I notice that he is not present. Just four years ago, during consideration of the 1995 Finance Bill, in the same debate that we are having today, he told the Committee of the House why the fuel duty escalator was such a good idea. He said:
      "The 5 per cent. real increases are also an important part of our strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The fuel duties policy should reduce carbon dioxide emissions by around 2.5 million tonnes of carbon by 2000. This, together with other measures already announced, should enable us to meet our targets of reductions arising from the Rio agreement."—[Official Report, 23 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 98.]
      Sir David Madel rose—
      Mr. Bercow rose—
      Mr. Graham Brady rose—
      Mr. Milburn: I have already given way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), but I have not given way to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel).
      Sir David Madel: The right hon. Gentleman has just referred to the quality of urban air. If he is so concerned about it, why have the Government cut the bypass programme to ribbons?
      Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman agreed to a green manifesto. At least I presume that he did, because he was a Conservative candidate at the general election. Despite all the difficulties, divisions and the splits inside the Conservative party, at least the Tories all signed up to the manifesto on which they went to the British people at the election.
      Sir David Madel rose—
      Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman has asked a question, and I shall give him the answer. I remind him of what he signed up to at the general election, and I also remind him that the promises that are made at elections should be kept subsequently, whether a party is in government or in opposition.
      Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Is it in order for the Chief Secretary to criticise my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) for his absence from our considerations when he must be aware that my right hon. Friend is attending a sitting of the Joint Committee on the Financial Services and Markets Bill?
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has said enough for me to know that that is not a point of order.
      Mr. Milburn: It was not even a good try, Sir Alan.
      In response to the question of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire, I shall quote back to him what the Conservative party agreed to at the general election and what it put before the British people. Its green manifesto stated:
      "We need to balance the freedoms the car provides and its impact on our environment. We need to consider new ways to break the link between desirable economic growth and undesirable traffic growth."
      That is what Conservative Members signed up to then, but apparently they do not believe it now.
      Several hon.Members rose—
      Mr. Milburn: I shall give way to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and then I really shall make some progress.
      Mr. James Gray: In the quote that the Minister gave from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) reference was made to the year 2000, which was a good reason for having the escalator in the first place. By then, we wanted to move towards achieving our Kyoto commitments. Does not the Minister realise that there is almost no elasticity in petrol or diesel usage, and such elasticity as there is will have been achieved by the escalator to date. The year 2000 is in six months from now. Does the Minister agree with me that the escalator has done its job and we have achieved our Kyoto commitments?
      Mr. Milburn: No, I do not believe that for a moment. I shall return shortly to precisely that issue—the
      156
      implications of the Opposition's abandonment of their commitments to environmental objectives that were formerly a matter of cross-party consensus. We supported the then Government when they signed up to their commitments at Rio, and thankfully—we are grateful to them for this—they, as the Opposition, supported our commitments when we signed up to them at Kyoto. Now all that seems to have been dissipated.
      We have not achieved our aims. That is precisely the point. The number of children with asthma continues to increase, especially in urban areas; pollution continues to increase; dirty lorries continue to have a harmful impact on air quality and the environment. The idea that we can simply wish all that away is the worst sort of political wishful thinking.
      Mr. John Burnett: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
      Mr. Milburn: I will make a little progress, if I may. I shall take interventions in a moment or two.
      We are not talking just about the issue as it affects urban areas. At least one Conservative Member has mentioned the impact of the fuel duty escalator on rural areas. Let me say two things to the Opposition. First, I agree with the right hon. Member who told the House four years ago:
      "I know that a car is often a necessity"—
      for those who lived in the countryside, he meant—
      "but all motorists must think about the environmental consequences of what they do.—[0fficial Report, 23 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 103.]
      Again, that was said by the present shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. What he agreed with then he apparently opposes now, so both he and the Conservative party are on desperately thin ice when it comes to defending the interests of the countryside and of rural motorists. What is more, the present Government—unlike the last—not only recognise the transport needs of rural areas, but have taken action to meet them.
      Mr. Francis Maude: Is the Chief Secretary seriously incapable of understanding the difference between an escalator of 5 per cent., introduced when Britain had about the lowest fuel prices in Europe, and an escalator of 12 per cent. operating when we had easily the highest?
      Mr. Milburn: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman needs to revisit his figures. I shall read them to him shortly.
      The truth is that, under the Conservative party, the increase in diesel prices because of the fuel duty escalator was not 5 per cent. at all: it averaged 10 per cent. during the last three years of Conservative Government. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to bandy figures he is welcome to do so, but, again, he is on desperately thin ice.
      It is not even as if the Conservatives stopped supporting the idea of environmental taxes the moment they left office. Quite the reverse. When we took office and announced that we were continuing the escalator policy

      157
      introduced by the Tories—and, indeed, raising it in our first Budget—the Leader of the Opposition told the House:
      "we welcome the Chancellor's continued use of tax for environmental purposes."—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 323.]
      The present Government believe that the Leader of the Opposition was right to believe that the taxation system can and, indeed, should be used to achieve our environmental objectives. The only difference between then and now is that the Tories want to disown now what they proclaimed then.
      The Tories claim that the reason that the escalator should be abandoned now is that either it has gone too far, or it has done its job. They say that the extra 1 per cent. that the Government have added to it has made it unaffordable, and has wreaked untold damage on, in particular, the haulage industry. That is baloney of the highest order.
      As I told the House last week, the price of a litre of diesel has risen less under this Government than under the last. The facts are these, according to the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics. In December 1996, after the previous, Conservative Government's last Budget, the price of a litre of diesel rose to 62.59p. After this Government's first Budget, in July 1997, the price rose again, to 63.44p. The latest figures, for March 1999, show that the price is now 69.76p. The increase has been about 7p per litre. By contrast, under the Conservatives, the price rose by 26p per litre.
      I should remind the shadow Chancellor and other Conservative Members of one other fact. The last five duty rises under the Conservatives added, respectively, 10 per cent., 10 per cent., 13 per cent., 10 per cent. and 7 per cent. to the price of diesel. In other words, the party that introduced the escalator—and is responsible for it having the greatest impact on fuel prices—now opposes it. A party that adopts such a position deserves to be called hypocritical. But that is not all.
      There are two major implications of the Conservatives' latest policy twist. First, Conservative Members' claim to support a cleaner environment has been exposed for exactly what it is: warm words with absolutely no substance. Although the Tories supported the Government when we made our legally binding obligations at Kyoto, their abandonment of the escalator leaves them professing support for our environmental objectives, but opposing the means of achieving them. Presumably they believe that environmental improvements will simply look after themselves.
      I should remind Opposition Members today, as I reminded them last week, of what the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), had to say about that issue. He said:
      "Any critic of the Government's tax plans who claims also to support international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emission will be sailing dangerously near to hypocrisy."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 939.]
      Mr. Gray: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Milburn: No.
      Hypocrisy characterises the Opposition's position in a second way. The fuel duty escalator raises about £1.5 billion annually. The Tories' abandonment of the
      158
      escalator contributes to the £6 billion black hole in their spending plans caused by their opposition to key Budget measures. Moreover, they voice that opposition less than 24 hours after the shadow Chancellor said that the Tories would match our spending plans on health and education. Therefore, one shadow Treasury Minister is saying one thing—more money for schools and hospitals—whereas another shadow Treasury Minister is saying another—less money for schools and hospitals.
      Conservative Members are all over the place on the issue. They describe Labour's spending plans as reckless, but then say that they agree with them. Yesterday, they said that they wanted to match our spending on schools and hospitals; today, they will be voting to take cash from those schools and hospitals. It is chaos laced with hypocrisy.
      By voting against clause 2 stand part, Conservative Members will be failing to put their money where their mouth is. Their figures simply do not add up, and no amount of double-talk can disguise the fact that they cannot be trusted either with public spending or with Britain's public services.
      The Opposition's credibility is also not enhanced by the ludicrous claims that they are making about the impact of the fuel duty escalator on the haulage industry. I repeat what I said last week in the House: the Government recognise and appreciate the contribution that the UK haulage industry makes to our economy. We also recognise that, by international standards, the industry is a highly competitive one. However, it suffers from problems of over capacity and inefficiency.
      The best UK haulage fleets are better than any others in the world. However, there are also enormous variations in performance. According to the industry's very own figures, the best UK haulage companies are almost twice as fuel efficient as the worst. No one disagrees with the fact that there is considerable scope for many British hauliers to reduce their fuel consumption. The need to become more fuel efficient has been heightened by growing public concerns about the environmental costs that hauliers impose in their use of lorries. Road freight distribution is one of the fastest growing causes of air pollution, accounting for one third of the 35 million tonnes of carbon that result from vehicle use. It is right and proper that everyone, including hauliers, should play a part in reducing such emissions.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. David Drew: The case that my right hon. Friend is making is interesting, but does he share my concern that, as well as examining the road haulage industry, we should consider inventory policy? One of the key reasons why there are so many vehicle movements is the "just in time" system, which has been an environmental disaster in many respects.
      Mr. Milburn: The industry and the Government agree that there are simple and straightforward steps that road hauliers can take to improve their performance. The representatives of the industry are discussing those issues with the Government now. Less empty running, better driver training, better logistics management and the use of cleaner engines will all make a difference to the haulage industry's fuel consumption.

      159
      As I have said, the gap between the best and the worst is alarming—and closing that gap is in the hands of the industry itself. I am sure that provided that we can achieve agreements between the industry and the Government in the road haulage forum, we can begin to make progress in the direction that my hon. Friend would like.
      The Government openly acknowledge that there is a balance to be struck between environmental objectives and the needs of the industry. We have established the road haulage forum to allow us to hear the industry's concerns, and, where possible, to deal with them. Dialogue rather than disruption will best serve the industry. Similarly, the industry will be best served by keeping a comfortable distance between itself and the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] After all, it was the Conservative party that drove almost 5,000 hauliers out of business during the recession that it created in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley rose—
      Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber. He was not here for the start of my speech, and he should have been, so I shall make him wait a moment or two.
      Mr. Paterson rose—
      Mr. Milburn: The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) has been here from the beginning; he has been patient.
      Mr. Paterson: Can the Minister square his comments on the environment with the evidence that I have received from the Library that in 1990 Britain's carbon emissions amounted to 159 million tonnes, of which only 30 million came from road transport? Of that 30 million tonnes, only 16 per cent. came from freight. The maximum estimate is therefore that 5 million of the 159 million tonnes came from road haulage. As there is no evidence that the number of loads carried has been reduced, where does the Minister get his environmental conclusions from?
      Mr. Milburn: I get my conclusions from the figures, which I recited earlier. Unlike his hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman has been present for the whole debate. I presume that he was listening to what I said, but I shall repeat it for his benefit: road freight distribution is one of the fastest growing causes of air pollution, accounting for one third of the 35 million tonnes of carbon that result from vehicle use. If the hon. Gentleman wants to go away and check his figures, he will find that mine are right.
      Mr. Brady rose—
      Mr. Milburn: No, I am not giving way. I want to finish now.
      It is simply wrong to say, as the Opposition allege, that the escalator makes it impossible for United Kingdom hauliers to compete with foreign hauliers. One would be hard pressed to find any United Kingdom industry—
      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed rose—
      Mr. Milburn: I am not giving way.
      Mr. Paterson rose—
      Mr. Milburn: I have made it clear that I am not giving way. I have given way on countless occasions, and frankly , I wish that I had not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—given the baloney that I have heard from the Conservatives. I am certainly not about to give way again.
      One would be hard pressed to find any United Kingdom industry more dominated by domestic providers than the road haulage industry. Of course we know that we pay more for diesel in this country than continental companies do, but they pay far more in corporation tax and labour costs. The tax burden here is lower than that in other major European countries. They have motorway tolls; by and large, we do not. Once all those factors are taken into account it is clear that moving out of the United Kingdom would be an expensive business for haulage firms.
      A typical firm, with 50 articulated lorries, would face higher business costs of nearly £;400,000 a year in France, £;600,000 a year in Holland and more than £800,000 a year in Belgium. So, contrary to the irresponsible claims from Conservative Members, Britain is the best place for hauliers, especially as a result of the help that the Budget gave to the haulage industry.
      Mr. Paterson: No.
      Mr. Milburn: Instead of yelling, the hon. Gentleman should start listening. He might learn something.
      The most fuel-efficient, road-friendly vehicles—and the companies that operate them—stand to gain from the package that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced on Budget day. That package includes the duty cut on cleaner, ultra-low sulphur diesel relative to ordinary diesel; the duty cut on road fuel gases enshrined in this clause; the freezing of vehicle excise duty for 98 per cent. of lorries, to which we shall return later in our deliberations; the doubling in the vehicle excise duty reduction for lorries meeting lower emission standards; and the cuts in red tape to allow lower-weight lorries to qualify for lower level vehicle excise duty. There are also, of course, the cuts in corporation tax, which have been welcomed so warmly by the business community.
      The Government's approach will help the road haulage industry and improve the environment. There is a balance to be achieved between the industry's needs and the country's environmental needs. The fuel duty escalator helps to get that balance right.
      Until last week, the Conservatives supported getting that balance right. What they argued for in government, they now argue against in opposition. Their position is irresponsible, unprincipled and hypocritical. It deserves short shrift from the Committee and I urge it to support the clause.
      Mr. Maude: I start, as usual, by declaring the outside interests disclosed in the Register of Members' Interests.
      The Committee will have listened to the Chief Secretary's speech with astonishment. His assertion that the road haulage industry is grateful to the Government

      161
      for the help that they have given is one of the most remarkable ever made by a Minister in the House. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had the nerve and the gall to make it.
      The huge rise in road fuel duties lies at the heart of the Budget, which was launched in such a blaze of chest-beating glory by the Chancellor. The Chancellor has rarely been seen since, but the Budget has fallen apart under the weight of scrutiny.
      It is not surprising that the public are increasingly angry at the lies told about the Budget. They are angry with a Chancellor who claimed that it was a Budget for families while abolishing the last recognition of marriage in the tax system. They are angry with a Chancellor who claimed that it was a Budget for enterprise while increasing tax on business by £3.2 billion. That is the help for business for which business is supposed to be so grateful. Some kind of help that is.
      Most of all, however, the public are angry with a Chancellor who claimed that it was a Budget of tax cuts, even though taxes are to go on rising by stealth. Figures from the House of Commons Library show the truth. Taxes will rise by £40.7 billion over this Parliament, and by £7.1 billion in the current financial year alone. That is the effect of the Government's stealth tax increases, the hidden tax rises that they hoped no one would notice. The rises amount to £1,500 for every taxpayer.
      All that is after the Prime Minister promised before the election that there were no plans to increase taxes at all. After this Budget, no one will ever believe a word that the Labour party says on tax. The Government have broken their promises on tax not once, but again and again and again. It is in the context of an ever-rising tax burden that we must consider the massive increase in tax on petrol and diesel under Labour. There is a limit to the number of times that Labour can clobber motorists with massive tax hikes and hope to get away with it. That limit has been exceeded. Petrol and diesel are far more expensive in Britain than anywhere else in Europe. It is time that the Government recognised that their policies are doing great damage to motorists.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that a number of increases in duty on DERV occurred under previous Conservative Governments. I opposed those increases, and the Freight Transport Association sent delegations to make protests to Conservative Ministers. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why he failed to take those protests into account, rather than implementing increases that he knew in his heart to be wrong in principle?
      Mr. Maude: If increases were wrong then, how much more so are they now. The escalator was introduced—I said this earlier, and the Chief Secretary did not contest it—at a time when Britain had about the lowest priced fuel in the European Union. Now, however, our fuel prices are the highest by a large margin. If the hon. Gentleman was right to oppose what was done then, I assume that he will vote with us against the Government's stunning 12 per cent. increase on DERV and the increase on petrol.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman has twice said that Britain under the Conservatives had the lowest priced fuel in the European Union. Can he name
      162
      one country in which the price charged for diesel was higher when the Conservatives were in power? France? Italy? Germany? Belgium? Holland? Spain? Can he name just one?
      Mr. Maude: My understanding is that we had about the lowest price. Certainly, the then Chancellor believed that—[Interruption.]and I hear confirmation from my hon. Friends.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong.
      Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman is not helping his case. If we already had more expensive fuel then, the case for opposing the Government now is even stronger. He is building ever higher the case against the wretched clause 2, which is doing such damage. For all the arrogant insouciance of the Chief Secretary, the Government should acknowledge that they are crippling the competitiveness of the road haulage industry. The tax increases have gone beyond any environmental justification. They should accept our view that the annual road fuel escalator should be scrapped. Conservatives will vote against the road fuel duty increases, and we urge the Government to abolish the escalator.
      Yvette Cooper: Given that the right hon. Gentleman opposes the fuel escalator that he once supported, and given that he claims to support the extra £40 billion for health and education, which he previously described as reckless and irresponsible, how does he make his sums add up? If the fuel escalator were abolished, where would he find the extra money for health and education?
      Mr. Maude: We expect a little more from the hon. Lady than that she should tamely read out junk mail from Labour party headquarters. Last July, in responding to the Chancellor's spending plans, I said—[Interruption.] The Chief Secretary is becoming very excitable, but I hope that, in view of what I said last night, and 10 months ago, he will refrain in future from—I must find a parliamentary way to express this—the deliberate distortion of our position. Last July, I said:
      "The Chancellor hopes that we will oppose his plans to spend more money on health and education, but I am going to disappoint him. Let there be no doubt that we welcome extra money for those priority services."—[Official Report, 14 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 196.]
      We supported the increases then and have done so ever since. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady had the decency to refrain from repeating that smear and distortion.
      Yvette Cooper rose—
      The Chairman: I call Yvette Cooper.
      Mr. Maude: I shall give way to the hon. Lady if she is prepared to withdraw what she said earlier and commit—
      The Chairman: Order. We are in danger of confusion. Despite my calling the hon. Lady, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has given way. I call Mr. Maude.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Maude: I will cheerfully give way, with the qualification that the hon. Lady should withdraw what she said and commit herself to refraining from deliberate distortions and smears.
      Yvette Cooper: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that he told the House of Commons that the comprehensive spending review, which involved £40 billion extra spending on health and education was "reckless" and "irresponsible"?
      Mr. Maude: The hon. Lady should know better than that. Yes, I said that the overall spending settlement was reckless and irresponsible, and that is because it breaches the Prime Minister's solemn general election pledge to cut the social security bill. Will she tell the Committee that he never said that? The comprehensive spending review involves an increase in social security bills equivalent to the extra spending that we support on health and education put together. How is the extra £37 billion on social security consistent with the solemn pledge to cut social security bills?
      Yvette Cooper: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the previous Government increased social security spending rapidly and that cutting social security bills is exactly what has allowed the Government to put extra money into pensions and child benefit? Given his concentration on the social security budget, what exactly does he want to cut—child benefit, pensions, or what?
      Mr. Maude: The best advice to the hon. Lady is, "When you are in a hole, stop digging." The lesson that she should learn from this is that she is okay with the first handout from Millbank tower, but beyond that she gets into serious difficulty. It was not the Conservative party, but Labour, that made a solemn general election pledge to cut social security bills. She should ask the Prime Minister what he plans to cut in the social security budget. It is his failure to cut it that makes the total spending plans irresponsible.
      When we introduced the fuel escalator in the previous Parliament, petrol and diesel prices in Britain were among the cheapest in Europe. Labour increased the escalator by a fifth, and brought forward the increases from November to March.
      Mr. Paterson: According to evidence given to me by Brian Yeardley—he only haulier mentioned in the famous KPMG report—in 1994 only Luxembourg and Spain had cheaper diesel than the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Maude: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Tony McNulty: The right hon. Gentleman said that it was the cheapest.
      Mr. Maude: The record will show that I said, "around the cheapest". The disclosure that there are two countries with cheaper fuel bears that out.
      From the basis introduced by the previous Government, Labour has increased the escalator by a fifth and brought forward the increases from November to March. Petrol and diesel prices in this country are now the highest
      164
      in Europe. It is time to get off the escalator. The Conservatives realise that, when one gets to the top of an escalator, it is sensible to get off. We recognised the problems that ever-rising duty was causing to our drinks industry, so we acted to deal with them. In our last two Budgets, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) froze duty on beer and wine and cut it on spirits. He recognised that we could not continue remorselessly loading burden on burden for ever. The Government face a much worse problem that has been imposed on the road haulage industry and the motorist by the road fuel tax. Their policies are doing real damage, but Ministers' only response has been to insult the hard-working people in the haulage industry, do nothing and hope that the problems will go away. Well, they will not.
      Mr. Shaun Woodward: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has in mind family businesses such as Betts and Co. in my constituency, which started in 1929, runs about four vehicles and has a turnover of £500,000 a year. Last year, despite that very good turnover, it made a profit of only about £15,000. This year, as a consequence of the increases that the Government are introducing, it is projected to lose about —5,000. The firm is far too small to think about moving abroad. It is suffering because of the increase in fuel duties. I am sorry that the Chief Secretary refused to take an intervention from me earlier on this matter. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government are deaf to such companies and that this sort of thing could undoubtedly put such companies out of business?
      Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend makes the point strongly. It is precisely that sort of case that has led the Freight Transport Association to call the rise in fuel prices "crackpot, cock-eyed and ridiculous". The Road Haulage Association claims that the British trucking industry
      "is being forced into exile by penal increases in taxation."
      The CBI has weighed in as well. As we know, it is not an organisation particularly prone to criticising the Government. It says:
      "The CBI believes this policy is placing British business at a disadvantage."
      No doubt it is ignorant, useless and uncompetitive in the eyes of the Chief Secretary. It says:
      "For some, bankruptcy may be unavoidable, while others may find it necessary to travel the extra miles to fill up outside the UK, or relocate altogether,"—
      is this fantasy from the CBI as well?—
      "to the detriment of local filling stations and local economies. The costs for those based in regions such as Scotland and Wales,"—
      perhaps of particular interest just at the moment to the Chief Secretary and his colleagues
      "who have less opportunity to take advantage of the cheaper diesel available on the Continent and who have further to go to reach Continental markets, could also rise disproportionately. —Either the road fuel duty escalator should be halted, or its impact on the commercial freight sector should be mitigated."
      No doubt that is all nonsense as well—another lot of hopeless people who are getting it all wrong. The fact is that the Government are failing to listen even to people on their side, including the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

      165
      Another hon. Member said:
      "Countless local road hauliers have talked to me about the road fuel duty … I know that many of them have real problems. the problems are not confined to road hauliers; large swathes of manufacturing industry are beginning to be hit by the tax … Common sense says that we must take our foot off the escalator at some time".—[Official Report, 20 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 764.]
      That was the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) in this Chamber last week. He is right. If only more Labour Members had the courage to speak out in defence of some of the poorest people in their constituencies, who find petrol prices are now spiralling out of their reach, and firms that face being literally priced out of business.
      One of my hon. Friends mentioned earlier the story in the newspapers at the weekend, which must have been placed by Treasury sources to try to head off the concern that is mounting day by day. It is headed "Brown in U-turn on petrol duty". It says:
      "Ministerial sources said yesterday that the fuel duty escalator was likely to be phased out or dropped in next year's Budget."
      It will be interesting to hear from the Chief Secretary whether that is a correct bit of briefing or just another decoy to detract attention from the mess that the Government have made of this policy and the damage that they are inflicting day by day. The Chief Secretary smiles in a merry way, but plenty of his constituents are suffering as a result of the escalator. I hope that he will confirm that the Government will take the advice that they have been given, by not just the Conservative party, but plenty of people outside the House of Commons, that it is time now to call a halt to the road fuel escalator.
      Mr. Christopher Leslie: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a simple question and I hope that I can get a simple, straight answer. Is his commitment to oppose any increase in the road fuel duty not just for this financial year but, say, for the next four?
      Mr. Maude: One expects a simple question from the hon. Gentleman. My commitment is exactly as I have stated it; we oppose the increase this year and we believe that the road fuel escalator should be abandoned. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is trying to say that he thinks that the same rate should continue in future. Does he believe that?
      I have stated our position clearly; it has at heart the interests of competitiveness and enterprise in this country.
      Mr. McNulty: At the risk of receiving the same unnecessary abuse, may I ask an equally simple question? Last Wednesday—not that long ago—the right hon. Gentleman supported a lengthy Opposition motion on the taxation of the road haulage industry, which made no mention of getting rid of the escalator; why not?
      Mr. Maude: I know that the hon. Gentleman is new to the House of Commons, but he should understand that we are discussing the Finance Bill. We are talking about a Government commitment that is imposing grave damage—
      Mr. McNulty: Where is the right hon. Gentleman's amendment?
      Mr. Maude: On the same day, we announced our plans to move off the road fuel escalator. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said that clearly during his speech in last week's debate.
      Mr. McNulty: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maude: I shall not give way again. I have made the point quite clear. We made it as clearly as we could in the debate. If the hon. Gentleman was not paying attention at that time, that is his problem; he can check Hansard if he wants to do so.
      The Government should accept that their policies are causing hardship now; it is not enough merely to utter warm and reassuring words about the possibility of doing something next year. The problem exists now. The Government have made a mistake now and they should scrap the escalator now.
      Mr. Swinney: The right hon. Gentleman might have heard the comments made earlier in relation to The Daily Telegraph article to which he referred. Based on the Chief Secretary's remarks, would it be fair to assume that the comments in the Red Book stand and that, over the weekend, the Government have been involved in some meddling to try to take the heat out of this debate, when, in fact, their intention is to maintain the fuel duty escalator for the remainder of this Parliament?
      Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman might be making a mistake by placing any reliance on what is contained in the Red Book, which is now a means to obfuscate the truth, not to illuminate it in the way that it has done in the past.
      Duty on petrol rose by 4p a litre in the Budget, following increases of 4p and 4.5p in the Labour Government's first two Budgets. Overall, the average motorist is now paying more than £150 a year extra in petrol tax as a result of the fuel duty increases in those Budgets. The latest Budget alone cost drivers £50 a year—la stealth tax of £1 a week. Under Labour, petrol prices are now the highest in the European Union, and the proportion of the price of a gallon taken in tax by the Chancellor is now as much as £8.50 in every £10. Excise duty—
      Mr. Derek Twigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maude: I have given way a great deal and I want to make some progress. If the hon. Gentleman persists, I shall give way in a little while.
      Rural motorists and the least well-off are especially hard hit by these vindictive tax increases. We know that, when he can remember which day of the week it is, the Deputy Prime Minister thinks that owning a motor car is a luxury—for everyone except him, of course; for him, owning two gas-guzzlers is an absolute necessity. However, a car is an absolute necessity for people who live in rural areas; it is not a luxury. I point out to the Chief Secretary that those people are deeply insulted by Government rhetoric that depicts them as selfish and irresponsible when, in reality, most people in the countryside cannot get by without a car.
      Let there be no mistake that these massive tax hikes hit the poorest people hardest. Many of those people mistakenly believed that the Labour party was on their side at the last election, but they now find that they are taxed ever more heavily. We understand why they feel

      167
      betrayed by a Government whose members promised, before the election, that they had no plans to increase taxes, but who have been piling taxes on motorists ever since. That is why we shall vote against petrol tax rises.
      It is not only car owners who are concerned. British truckers have seen diesel duty increase by a massive 12 per cent. in the Budget—that is 6p extra per litre.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Twigg: The right hon. Gentleman has complained about stealth taxes and has referred to the situation now. Will he take this opportunity to make a clear promise and rule out the idea that his party will ever introduce a road fuel escalator at the next general election or at any other time in the future?
      Mr. Maude: I have stated our position clearly. People will be pretty insulted to find that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make cheap debating points about a time after the next general election, while businesses and motorists face extinction today. If he can only make cheap points while people are losing their jobs and livelihoods, it will confirm people's opinion that his party does not care about business or about the livelihoods of hard-working people.
      Mr. Milburn: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the green manifesto that his party published at the last general election?
      Mr. Maude: I fought the election on that manifesto. The fact is that an escalator was introduced when our petrol and fuel prices were among the lowest in Europe. We always said that there was a place for an escalator, until we reached the point at which it inflicted grave and excessive damage—then we needed to get off it. The point at which the escalator is doing disproportionate harm has now been reached, and exceeded—[Interruption.]—The Chief Secretary fails to take account of the fact that his Government activated the escalator three times during their first two years in office, and at a rate considerably in excess of that committed to under the Conservative Government. That is why the top of the escalator has now been reached and the escalator should be abandoned.
      Mr. Twigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maude: No, I shall not give way any more. I want to make some progress.
      Diesel duty in Britain is now the highest in the EU—by a considerable amount.
      Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Maude: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall carry on.
      It is no wonder that scores of companies have complained that they face a huge competitive disadvantage compared to their continental counterparts. [Interruption.] Discount is scoffed at and sneered at by the Chief Secretary because he does not care about that. Companies are being forced to flag out their operations.
      168
      The industry has warned that thousands of jobs will be lost unless something is done to reduce the ever-rising taxes on hauliers. Those who suggest that there are still environmental justifications for continuing those increases should consider some recent research by the Centre for Economics and Business Research Ltd. The calculations in that research show that
      "road usage will be reduced by 0.51%"
      following the increase, but that the impact on the economy will be a loss of nearly 12,000 jobs. The environmental justification for the escalator has now completely disappeared.
      What is the Government's response to the legitimate, serious and heartfelt concerns expressed by so many people? It makes matters worse that Ministers seem utterly ignorant of the problem. The Financial Secretary claimed that lorries do about 40 miles to the gallon—the actual figure is less than 10 miles. Last week, the Chief Secretary said:
      "The truth is that the price of a litre of diesel has risen by 7p since the general election."—[Official Report, 21 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 929.]
      He has said that again today, but it is simply not true. The price of a litre of diesel has actually risen by about 14p since the election, and the proportion of the price of diesel taken in tax has risen from 76 to 86 per cent. since May 1997. The Chief Secretary's approach is symptomatic of the Government's arrogant attitude to the problems caused by their policies.
      Mr. Milburn: I presume that the right hon. Gentleman was listening to what I said. I reiterated the figures that I gave last week. When he says that the price of diesel has increased by 14p, that is simply wrong. He should look at the statistics produced by the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics—the official bible in relation to these issues. He will find that the allegation that he has just made is misplaced—as is the allegation made to me in writing by his right hon. Friend the Member for Wells Mr.Heathcoat-Amory).
      Mr. Maude: I continue to assert that what the Chief Secretary said was wrong and that my assertion is correct. We can argue about the facts and see what results.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maude: I am aware that the hon. Member for Belfast, South wants to make a point about the situation in Northern Ireland, so I shall give way to him.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: As one who has been privileged to sit on the Opposition Benches facing both a Tory Government and a Labour Government, I know that it is part of the Opposition's job to press the Government. Dare I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's argument, that it is time to stop and think again, is the same one that was applicable when, to deal with health issues relating to tobacco, we imposed higher taxes instead of limiting advertising? When the Chief Secretary spoke about Britain, were his remarks not a reflection of little England? People living around the south coast, in Scotland, Wales,

      169
      northern England and Northern Ireland are suffering greatly. Firms are going out of business and, ultimately, social security costs will have to rise.
      Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman makes the point powerfully and forcefully, and he is absolutely right. Sadly, the Government are not ready to listen to representations from all parts of the country. The problem becomes more intense the further away one gets from the prosperous south-east of the country.
      The Chief Secretary's approach is typical of the Government's arrogant attitude to the problems caused by their own policies. They say that British hauliers need to sharpen up their act and they have the cheek to lecture businesses, saying that there is a problem with the haulage industry; the Chief Secretary repeated today the view that the industry's problems are of its own making. Do the Government realise how enraging it is for Britain's hauliers to be lectured about their supposed lack of competitiveness by Ministers with not a day's experience in business between them? Britain's hauliers operate in one of the most competitive markets in the world—they know the problems they face, and they know that one of their biggest problems is a Government who are ignorant of how to encourage successful businesses.
      The Government also claim that the tax increases do not really matter because the British haulage industry is still more competitive than its continental counterparts—as though that gives them the right endlessly to continue to tax hauliers until their competitive edge has been completely eroded. The Government point to the famous KPMG report and claim that it shows the competitiveness of UK haulage. That report was not a report on road haulage at all, and it does not even address the point raised by the hon. Member for Workington about the cost of haulage per mile in this country. It is of some interest that Mr. Brian Yeardley, a haulier cited in the KPMG report, has been forced to flag out by the crippling tax increases imposed by the Labour Government. He says:
      "The Chancellor has ensured that we are uncompetitive against foreign hauliers".
      Mr. Yeardley cannot be expected to know—after all, he is running a business, not sitting fatly on the Treasury Bench pontificating on the subject. He adds:
      "Each of our vehicles must earn seventeen thousand pounds more annually than our European competitors to cover these extra tax costs."
      Is he wrong about that as well?
      That is exactly why there is a problem, and it is why, last week, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) invited the Government to publish a proper report on the competitiveness of the British road haulage sector. Ministers have consistently refused to commission such a report and, despite the issue being raised last week, when the Chief Secretary was pressed on it today, he was unable to say definitively whether such a commission had been raised. The Government simply do not want to know the truth.
      The Government should not take only our word for the problems being faced; they should listen to what hauliers themselves have said. I hope that, when they do that, Ministers will take a slightly less offensive attitude toward
      170
      hauliers than the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. During the Budget debate, he said:
      "Most of us who have been in the House for any time know that the road hauliers are the biggest crowd of whingers under the sun."—[Official Report, 10 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 419.]
      Will the Chief Secretary take this opportunity to dissociate the Government from that grossly offensive statement, which has given enormous offence to many hard-working people who are struggling, against odds multiplied by the Labour Government, to make a living?
      Mr. Derek Twigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maude: No. The hon. Gentleman fluffed his chance last time and I shall not give him another.
      The Government should listen to the chairman of the Road Haulage Association, who said:
      "When we put Tony Blair's Government into power, they created the illusion that they were going to be the party of small businesses. What happened is exactly the opposite. They are destroying our industry and destroying small family businesses that have been going for many years and causing enormous distress when people are losing homes that they have spent their entire lives working for."
      He must be someone else who does not know what he is talking about. The Government should listen to companies such as Ferguson, whose representative writes:
      "Nissan informed me that we had been unsuccessful in our bid for a contract which they had decided to award to a Dutch company purely on the basis of price … we are unable to maintain a competitive edge in the UK, let alone Europe."
      I have plenty more quotations from hauliers who have had an extremely rough time under a Labour Government who will not listen to them. The saddest of all comes from Mr. Gary Reeve, who comes from the Prime Minister's own constituency. He says:
      "I am having to battle for the survival of my company which employs 18 people."
      He wrote to his local Member of Parliament—the Prime Minister—asking for help and received a very helpful reply from the Foreign Office which began:
      "Thank you for your letter showing interest about the situation in Kosovo."
      That is about as helpful as the letter written by the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, Lord Whitty. He responded to a road haulier's complaints about the tax increase on diesel with a rare and special sensitivity, replying:
      "All hauliers who operate internationally can take advantage of lower prices elsewhere."
      That means, "Push off, get on with it, don't bother us—we don't care about you." The industry and small businesses are entitled to expect better from a Government who promised them so much.
      The huge increases in diesel tax mean that truckers are carrying a competitive millstone: not only are they paying far more in road fuel duty, but they have been clobbered by the virtual doubling of road tax. In that respect, we have made some practical proposals to help the industry with the introduction of the Brit disc—a useful idea, which would make a significant difference. It was casually dismissed out of hand by the Deputy Prime Minister during his infamous appearance at the Dispatch Box two weeks ago; the best we can hope for is that he

      171
      thought he was dismissing some other proposal. I hope that Ministers will reconsider that intemperate response to a sensible suggestion, because it is a simple and serious proposal which would make a start on helping the road haulage industry.
      The Government promised not to raise taxes, but they have broken that promise. They promised to listen to the voice of business, but they have ignored the voice of business. They promised to support hard-working people, but they have loaded them down with a devastating burden. It is not surprising that the Chancellor never comes to the House to defend his policies or even to debate them. It is not too late for this arrogant Government to think again. Unless they are willing to do so, I urge the Committee to vote against the clause.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I rise to make an unashamedly constituency speech today, because I feel strongly about the issue—to which I am not new. Over the years, I have argued repeatedly in favour of low fuel costs for Britain's commercial haulage operators. On several occasions, I wrote to Treasury Ministers of the previous Government objecting to the increases in the costs of DERV, and I did so on behalf of constituent hauliers who were being unfairly penalised by such increases. I want to make it clear at the outset that I am not opposed to the escalator. I am in favour of the escalator, but I am opposed to its being used in respect of DERV for commercial vehicles, and I believe that commercial vehicles should be exempted.
      The reason for my opposition is derived from personal experience. In the 1960s and 1970s, before I was elected to Parliament, I half-owned a manufacturing company in Lancashire. We had a fleet of two articulated vehicles: a Ford D1000 tractor unit and a Scania 110 tractor unit, which those in the haulage industry will know are large vehicles. One of them was a sleeper-cab truck and we used to run it across Europe carrying our own goods, mainly exports or imported components. We also did back loads for freight forwarders in Milan and France and occasionally from the United Kingdom abroad. I have run trucks and have experience of the industry—albeit on a small scale 25 years ago when I was a young man, long before I was elected to the House of Commons. I recall in great detail the effect of diesel costs on manufacturing industry.
      5 pm
      I have protested repeatedly to successive Governments—including this one—about diesel costs and I have been corresponding with Treasury Ministers about this issue for the past 18 months. I feel strongly about diesel taxation, which I believe undermines the position of manufacturing companies in the regions. Those companies' high costs should be offset in part by low transportation costs. I regard transport costs for hauliers in the regions as part of regional policy. Some people view regional selective assistance as a necessary subsidy for industry, and one that ensures investment, and some believe that low energy prices are required in certain sectors, particularly in the chemical and paper and board industries. I believe that we must maintain a low price structure for energy and transport costs.
      172
      It is totally counter-productive to levy costs on hauliers that they then pass on to customers without recognising the consequences of that decision for export prices and inflation within the United Kingdom. I am very conscious of the need to take account of environmental benefits when considering such matters. However, we must also bear in mind the cost to British manufacturing industry, particularly when the exchange rate is high and is causing that sector some discomfort.
      I believe in the harmonisation of taxation across the European Union. I know that it is unpopular, but I believe that income tax rates, sales tax rates and all other rates of taxation should be uniform across the EU. 1 am a big supporter of the European Union, and believe that the proposition is utterly inevitable; it will come to pass. We may argue about it today and perhaps for the next decade, but, in the end, tax rates across the European Union will be harmonised. We should be thinking about that at this stage in our history. It seems quite silly to attend various meetings of the Commission and of the Council of Ministers and talk about level playing fields in differing areas of trade policy when we are aggravating a condition that will produce the antithesis of a level playing field. We should pursue harmonised tax policies, which means ending the escalator as it affects fuel prices for commercial operators.
      I am very conscious of the impact of the increases in my constituency and on companies operating in Cumbria. I refer the Committee to some relevant correspondence and articles to which I have drawn Ministers' attention privately. The time has come to put this correspondence before the Committee, because I do not believe that Ministers have taken it into account. A shocking article appeared in the West Cumbrian News and Star on 22 March under the headline:
      "Stobart Freezes Pay Over Fuel Tax".
      The article reads:
      "Cumbria-based haulage firm Eddie Stobart has imposed a pay freeze on its staff because of fuel and road tax increases in the Budget.
      Eddie Stobart … has already registered 10 of its 840 trucks in Luxembourg to avoid Britain's tax increase.
      A further 40 look likely to be registered there, at a cost of only £350 a year… William Stobart, group operations director, said: 'We want to keep the workforce here. Registering lorries in Luxembourg is simply a cost-cutting measure…The drivers are angered and upset because Eddie Stobart can no longer pay a rise to his drivers. This is the first time this has happened and they say the Budget is to blame. We are not even getting a cost-of-living rise.
      Everything else in the world is going up but our wages. We have to survive too.'"
      My right hon. and hon. Friends will know that I am loyal to the cause, but I do not believe that drivers should have to pay this tax. That is effectively what will happen: drivers in my constituency will have to bear the burden of additional taxation levied on hauliers. That is simply wrong.
      I spoke to the Eddie Stobart firm this morning and I was told that the company made a profit of only £1 million last year. The reduction in corporation tax, to which my hon. Friends have referred and which is also mentioned in the KPMG report, will probably benefit the company by about £20,000 to £30,000 per annum. The cost of increasing duties and licences as proposed in the Budget will be £2 million. One figure does not compare with the other. If the difference is being paid by drivers

      173
      in Cumbria or nationally, it is just plain wrong. That is why I think that the Government should rethink their decision.
      As to flagging in Luxembourg, it is true that part of the Stobart fleet operates in the European Union. I think it is perfectly acceptable for companies to register vehicles abroad. The problem arises when firms start registering abroad vehicles that operate within the United Kingdom. The Stobart firm told me at midday today that it is planning to register about 100 vehicles outside the United Kingdom in Luxembourg. The firm may have to establish commercial premises in Europe in order to organise its activities properly. I am very worried about what I describe as the "Northern Ireland problem" whereby people drive over the border to register their vehicles and refuel. We are getting our tax profile wrong if that is now happening in England.
      I understand that these items were included in public expenditure projections before the last general election and that the Government have simply carried them forward. Let us be truthful and say that that is what has happened: a defence based on environmental issues is misplaced. Public expenditure extrapolations as built into the Red Book must be borne in mind when taking decisions about this issue. How much would it cost the Exchequer if we were to find a way of exempting commercial operators from the increase in DERV duty? I suspect that it would be quite a small figure in terms of national expenditure, and I believe Ministers that should take that into account when considering future increases.
      Another operator in my constituency, Mr. Teasdale of Cockermouth, travelled to London and took part in the great demonstration. I am not convinced that it is right to accuse those people of being wreckers. They feel very strongly about their business and have a case to argue. Frankly, I did not think that they were acting irresponsibly.
      People are entitled to demonstrate. In the past 20 years as a Labour Member of Parliament, I have supported, in the House, demonstrations that I thought were right. 1 also supported demonstrations before I was elected. Indeed, I was involved in a demonstration some 30 years ago outside South Africa house in London, with some hon. Friends who are now in the Government. We accept that people have the right to demonstrate. That is all that the road hauliers were doing, and they were perfectly entitled to do so. Mr. Teasdale, the haulage contractor from Cockermouth to whom I referred, is expressing concern and asking the Government to rethink their policy.
      I have another disturbing letter from a very reputable company in my constituency — Thomas Armstrong (Holdings) Ltd. It is one of the largest building companies in the north of England and employs many hundreds of people in that region. It has large carpentry shops and produces window frames, doors and roofing trusses for the building industry. It has a building division and a haulage division. The firm's letter to me, dated 24 March, says:
      "As most of our lorries go out of Cumbria by road and we have to compete with other companies who are far closer to the market place, this latest increase has put our haulage business in jeopardy and we will possibly have to reduce our fleet by about 50 per cent. during the next 12 months."
      174
      I am very worried about that. The letter continues:
      "It is estimated that the total increase for fuel duty and road licence will be in the region of —400,000, which we will certainly not be able to recover from our customers who are only interested in savings not increases.
      We have written to all our drivers and informed them that due to the additional costs that have been imposed on us in the Budget, we intend to make changes which will result in the loss of jobs."
      I say to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary that I was not elected to bring about job losses. We cannot allow companies to lay off workers as a result of measures that we have introduced.
      As I said, I am not opposed to the escalator; I seek an exemption for commercial operators who run trucks and carry goods throughout the United Kingdom to and from remote areas, such as mine, which will suffer unreasonably as a result of the changes.
      I have another letter, which I understand was sent to a number of hon. Members, from the Forestry Contracting Association. I could stand here probably for two hours and just read out correspondence because I am in contact with people in the industry who know of my interest and have been writing to me. I have picked out only the letters that are particularly interesting.
      The forestry haulage industry is important because the cost of haulage is crucial to the cost of timber, and many rural economies and parts of the United Kingdom are dependent on the timber industry, just as paper and board mills are dependent on a supply of timber. Our options are to import the timber from Russia, as some companies would like to do, or parts of Scandinavia, or to buy it within the United Kingdom and sustain rural development — something that we all want to do. I favour the latter option but, if a paper and board facility is situated inland, the timber must be hauled from somewhere within the United Kingdom.
      The Forestry Contracting Association said in its letter:
      "The continued strength of Sterling and other factors outwith the control of the industry has led to increasingly large volumes of low priced imported timber being used in the UK … As a consequence, businesses have reduced production levels and there have been numerous sawmill closures and job losses throughout the UK… the imposition of significant increases in diesel costs and Vehicle Excise Duty will further damage the competitiveness of the sector.
      Specialist timber hauliers estimate that their costs will increase by at least 5 per cent. after the Budget announcement… There is little or no scope for further reductions in operating costs in the industry in the short to medium term. Haulage accounts for at least 25 per cent. of the delivered value of British grown round timber."
      5.15 pm
      The paper and board sector of industry is, internationally, extremely sensitive to price. I am for ever being called by Iggesund, one of the largest paper and board operators in the United Kingdom, with a factory in my constituency, which tells me how sensitive it is to the slightest movement in sterling against a basket of currencies, or against the dollar. Sterling's rate against the dollar has not been too bad, but its exchange rate with European currencies causes concern. Such companies are concerned about slight changes, and they are particularly sensitive to the changes in duty rates.
      There has been another development, which I should draw to the attention of the Committee. It involves a Conservative-controlled council, but, on this particular issue, I have no intention of making political capital;

      175
      I merely draw it to the attention of the Committee. Kent county council has issued a statement, in which one of its leaders said:
      "I'll be astounded if we don't have vehicles flagged out by middle to the back end of this year. If we could save £100,000, I'd be happy flagging out. We're looking at flagging out 500 vehicles."
      I make no political point in quoting that statement; people will have to make decisions about how they want to arrange their affairs, but I am worried by the fact that a local authority is thinking about flagging out.
      Today, a Conservative-run authority is considering that practice but, once it appears to generate savings, there is a danger that even Labour-controlled authorities may think that they should apply the same procedures and consider the savings that could arise simply from changing the flagging-out arrangements of their fleet. That is the kind of distortion that enters the debate when we neglect the need for harmonisation of taxation. That is why I am so keen to have harmonisation of all forms of tax, not only those in this sector.
      Those who are in favour of the duty increases tell me that, in France and other parts of the European Union, the Exchequer compensates for the low level of VED because companies use the motorway system, where they have to pay tolls. However, anyone who knows how the freight industry in France works will know that many haulage operators simply do not use the motorways, but drive on the state roads to avoid paying the high tolls. We should be careful about using arguments about hauliers paying motorway tolls to compensate for other forms of taxation. In Italy, hauliers do exactly the same as they do in France. Even with the congestion in the strada nazionale system, most haulage operators use state roads wherever possible to avoid the high motorway toll charges.
      I do not know whether the practice is the same in other countries, but the Swiss have an interesting system whereby, when one enters Switzerland, one buys a carnet. I do not know whether it is possible to have such a system in the United Kingdom. Switzerland is, of course, outside the European Union and may, therefore, legally be able to introduce such a charge, but we should perhaps consider a similar system for overseas operators coming to the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that he is describing the Brit disc, which the Conservative party has been proposing for some time. I hope that his Government will now accept our suggestion.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have spent a lot of time politicking in this place and, if there is a good idea, I do not mind from where it cometh, as long as it secures the survival of the haulage industry in the United Kingdom. I am very worried about the results of the Budget and the fuel escalator. I desperately want the escalator brought to an end as it affects commercial vehicles.
      I have no problems with the fuel escalator as it affects the private car—and I represent a rural constituency. I do not object to petrol price increases. I believe that, over a period of years, people will switch to smaller vehicles. The incentive that we introduced in the last Budget, by reducing taxation on vehicles of less than 1100 cc, was a very good idea—anything to incentivise the use of smaller
      176
      vehicles. I am asking for the escalator to be brought to an end, not on petrol, but on diesel fuel for commercial vehicles.
      We are repeatedly told that the British road haulage fleet is too large. I believe that to be a fallacious argument. In order to restrict and contain price increases in the commercial haulage business in the United Kingdom, it is necessary to ensure that more vehicles are available than are required—that the fleet is "too large". The moment that the fleet reflects demand, operators will increase prices. The existence of small operators, who have lower costs and who submit lower bids to their manufacturers customers, has a restraining effect on haulage costs in the United Kingdom, ensuring that costs do not increase too fast. Such small companies are in a position to say, "I will do the job for less". That was the case in the years when I was in business. I have been talking today to haulage operators whom I have met; they accept that it remains the case. An oversupply inevitably has implications for inflation.
      I am worried about a market where many of the little operators have been driven out of business because they cannot afford to operate. I am worried about a market where supply exactly meets demand, because I believe that, as a result, the large operators will start to jack up their price. Let us have oversupply.
      I apologise to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary for the fact that I had to make this speech, as I am blindly loyal. I have no problems with what we have done in the past year and a half, but this issue will not go away. Next year, when Budget decisions are being taken in the Treasury, I hope and pray that she will argue passionately—I beseech her to do so—that the escalator should not be used against the haulage industry, because it is extremely damaging to constituencies such as mine.
      Sir David Madel: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I appreciate that a great deal of his speech was constituency based; part of mine will be. The only aspect on which I disagreed with him was his opinion that the Government had done a good thing in fixing one of the vehicle excise duty thresholds at 1100 cc. That was the wrong capacity to choose. Older cars of less than 1100 cc do fewer miles per gallon than more modern cars of up to 1400 cc; and, as 1400 cc is recognised by the tax man as a tax point where one pays less or more, it seemed to me that the vehicle excise duty should sensibly have been fixed at 1400 cc—not at 1100 cc, as was suggested.
      I am sorry that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has left because, when he kindly gave way to me, he kept waving a document about the Conservative party's environmental credentials—what we had stood for or not stood for at the election. I will tell the Committee exactly what I stood for.
      First, I stood for an increase in the bypass-building programme, on grounds that that would improve the quality of urban air. Secondly, in my constituency we stood for the restoration of the rail link between Dunstable and Luton. So did 80 per cent. of the people in Dunstable who were asked about that in a poll; so did Labour members of South Bedfordshire district council and Labour members of Dunstable town council. The only blockage was the opposition of Labour-controlled Luton council to the reintroduction of the railway. As a result,

      177
      because the local authorities were not united, we lost the transport package bid. Instead of arguing for the restoration of the railway—the track is all there; it would not cost much—Luton council argued for a busway. That is not nearly as environmentally friendly as the restoration of the railway would be; and when Luton people vote on 6 May, some of them will remember the anti-environment attitude of that Labour council.
      I am glad that we are having a full day's debate on this subject, because it gives the Government another chance to sort out their ambivalent attitude to the car industry. Since the Budget, the Government have announced £200 million for Rover at Longbridge, and Ford has announced that a new car will be built at Dagenham. I have no doubt that local Labour MPs around the Longbridge and Dagenham plants are luxuriating in the glow of the good news for employment that two new models will be built at those plants.
      However, not all the cars that will be built will be exported. A buoyant home market is necessary to sustain production and demand in those plants and in others throughout the country, and to sustain the many suppliers of the car industry.
      As the car industry invests, it constantly improves engines and makes them cleaner. Research on that subject is intensifying. Since 1992, toxic emissions from motor vehicles have decreased by 42 per cent. That is the result of the commitment of the car industry to produce cleaner, more fuel-efficient engines—and that process will continue.
      The Government should also use today's debate to sort out their attitude to the considerable increases in car ownership in this country. For instance, more and more women now own cars to get to work. I welcome the huge increase in the number of women who are working. However, they often now work flexi-hours, so the bus will not do. Often they will use a car to get to a training course. The car allows them to exercise maximum choice in school selection—in which the Conservative party believes—so they need a car to get their children to school.
      Cars built 10 years ago—provided that they have been properly serviced—are proving durable, and that has opened up a market for young people, who can just about afford a car priced between £1,000 and £;2,000. They need to get to their first job, or to an evening training class. The bus will not do as a substitute for them.
      The third strand in the increase in car ownership is pensioners, who are living longer, are in better health and enjoy better pensions, and therefore want to retain their mobility and independence.
      Those are very important social trends in car ownership and in life style. Instead of continuing the fuel escalator, the Government should respond positively to what is happening. They should not say blithely, "You can avoid more pollution by getting on the bus." In my view, no amount of smooth and beguiling propaganda can ever make the bus an attractive alternative to the car. I draw attention to two reasons for that.
      First, the way in which housing estates have been constructed makes it virtually impossible for the bus to go round the estate to pick up people to go to work, a training course or another activity. Secondly, as I said in my intervention on the Chief Secretary, the road-building programme and the bypass programme have been cut to
      178
      ribbons by the Government, discouraging the use of buses. One will not get buses out of towns unless the bypasses are built—a process that we had set in train. We had not gone fast enough, but at least we were going in the right direction.
      I do not think that people expect revenues from fuel duty to be spent on the continual widening of the motorways and the construction of new motorways. We have come to the end of the motorway building programme, but we are nowhere near the end of the bypass building programme, and I wanted to hear something more positive about that from the Government.
      5.30 pm
      There comes a time when a tax becomes useless and dangerous. The fuel escalator tax has become useless because the technology, design and thrust of the car industry mean that less fuel is being used. It has become dangerous because of the effect that it is having on the road haulage industry—for all the reasons given by the hon. Member for Workington—and because of its effect on the cost of living and on the competitiveness of this country.
      It is time for Labour Members to put constituency before party. They will have received the same representations as us, and many of them represent rural or semi-rural constituencies. My advice to them is, for once, disregard the Whips—do not take any notice of them and join us in the Lobby this evening.
      Mr. Eddie McGrady: I want put on record the particular and terrible problems that the increase in the duties on hydrocarbons are causing in Northern Ireland. The Committee may be inclined to switch off when a Northern Ireland Member gets up to say how uniquely difficult a problem is in Northern Ireland, but this problem has a visible, physical uniqueness there and causes disadvantage.
      Northern Ireland has the United Kingdom's only land border with another sovereign state—a state with fiscal and customs and excise regimes different from those in the United Kingdom. I draw attention to the fact that there is probably not a single haulage business in Northern Ireland that is more than 50 miles from the border with the Republic of Ireland. In that context, we can best consider the increase in duties over the past number of years by referring to the period between 1990 and 1999. In the Republic of Ireland, there was an increase of 6 per cent. in the duty on unleaded petrol. In Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, there was an increase of 242.2 per cent. That is an enormous differential.
      The same applies to diesel fuels. In the Republic of Ireland over those 10 years, the duty increased by 14.8 per cent. In Northern Ireland, it increased by 264 per cent. over the same period. Those increases are cumulative and not attributable to any particular Government, but there is a crunch point at which it becomes impossible to trade in such conditions.
      I refer the Committee to the enormous increase in smuggling. It is reckoned that a large percentage of wholesale and retail trade in fuels is illegal. Customs and Excise has told us in public statements that it cannot cope, is addressing only a fraction of the problem and catches only a few of the people involved. Let me put the meaning

      179
      of that smuggling into context. A person who can smuggle 25,000 litres, which is a relatively small amount, can make £4,600 profit on the load. If he is further engaged in illegal activity and does not even pay value added tax, profit can increase to almost £;6,500 per load. Smuggling has a huge attraction for the worst elements in our society, who can make a fast and enormous profit.
      Smuggling is one problem that we face, but the legitimate trade also faces the problem of the enormous differential between the customs and excise duties imposed over a 10-year period. We have come to the crunch and businesses are being put out of action completely. Large distributors are trying to hold the line, for a limited time, by reducing prices to their main customers in Northern Ireland. Local oil and fuel distributors cannot do that, so they cannot pass on any comfort or cushion to the petrol retailers, which means that, as we sit here, petrol retailers and small oil distributors are going out of business right along the border—from Donegal to South Down. Northern Ireland is semi-circumscribed by the land border, so everyone is within reasonable reach of cross-border trade and substantially reduced prices, either for bulk purchases or for fuel for individual cars.
      In addition, most of Northern Ireland's communities—especially in the border counties—are rural and, except for a line running north to south, we have no railway system whatever. We are totally dependent on the roads system. Small retailers scattered throughout the countryside not only supply petrol, but cater for a substantial number of the household needs of rural communities.
      Over and above that, the transport and haulage business is also in danger of being decimated or transferred. People have to transfer their whole operation only 10, 20 or 30 miles, and they are doing so. Businesses are setting up networks—this issue has been referred to in other contributions—not in Europe, but in the Republic of Ireland, 10 miles away across the land border. Those communities are losing all the jobs associated with road haulage and transport companies, with oil and fuel distributors and with local service stations, and they already suffer fairly high levels of unemployment; the continual increase in duties is having a terminal effect on those sectors.
      The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred to local councils looking elsewhere to buy fuel. Take it from me, the imposition of best value means that Northern Ireland district councils will buy their fuel from across the border—full stop, end of story. Buying across the border is best value, by a long chalk. If it would pay to register vehicles across the border, that could be done quite readily—by the stroke of a pen—without effecting any great administrative change. On top of all that, we have the additional difficulty of the road tax situation. Road tax in Northern Ireland is 11 times greater than that in some of our European counterparts.
      It is easy for me to recite our problems—I am conscious that they have been caused over many years by the accumulated burden of customs and excise duties—but I have a suggestion that I hope the Economic Secretary will take on board, if she would care to listen. Our situation is not unique. There are other land borders throughout Europe and I draw her attention to the particular problem
      180
      of the customs and excise differential between the Netherlands and Germany. A special protocol is in place under which border retailers and distributors receive a special rebate. As one recedes from the international boundary, the rebate decreases. It means that there is a tempering of the differential between the borders of the Netherlands and Germany. That arrangement was put in place by the Dutch and German Governments with the approval of the European Union's competition agency.
      Mr. Seamus Mallon: May I point to another anomaly? At present, given where we stand politically, we have agreed six cross-border bodies known as "new implementation bodies", and another six areas for enhanced co-operation between north and south. One of the areas is energy, and the objective is to harmonise the relationship between the north of Ireland and the Republic in terms of energy. Is it not contradictory that the Government are to spend £33 million in the first five years to set up those bodies to harmonise areas within the economic life of the island, yet they blink at the type of change that could allow harmonisation to take place to the advantage of people in the north of Ireland?
      Mr. McGrady: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which well illustrates the totality of the problem between the north and the south of Ireland. The people of Ireland, north and south, have agreed to try to rationalise those differentials, particularly in respect of energy production and distribution, as well as fuel costs and transport problems, which is the subject that we are dealing with today.
      In replying to the debate, will the Minister undertake to pursue the idea of a protocol, such as that between the Dutch and German Governments, and to see whether it could be applied to the much more difficult and detrimental differential that exists along the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland? I ask this as a matter of grave urgency because we cannot wait for another Budget to turn things around. We simply will not survive it. As the smuggling becomes more and more profitable, it will increase and become a substitute for other activities, which we have now peacefully got rid of.
      Firms are being transferred and small businesses, retail outlets, and local oil and petrol distributors are falling down commercially. It would be an exaggeration to say that that is happening daily, but it is certainly happening weekly. Ultimately, the suppliers of fuel in Northern Ireland will be those who import it illegally because the legitimate trader and transporter simply cannot survive if he competes in an honest way.
      If honest men and women in the transport, distribution and retail industries want to survive commercially and to earn an income for their families, they are being forced into the hands of the illegal dealers. It is the only way in which they can survive and make a profit. In many instances, they are being forced into the hands not just of smugglers—there is a certain romanticism about smugglers in Ireland—but of paramilitaries. That is an entirely different prospect.
      It is a layer-upon-layer problem. The paramilitaries are now becoming very interested in that lucrative and safe trade because Customs and Excise has admitted that it cannot deal with it, and it does not seem to have the

      181
      potential of dealing with it in the foreseeable future. Admittedly, the smugglers' activities are innovative and clever. They will become increasingly innovative and clever as Customs and Excise—or "the Revenue", as it is known—catches up with them.
      The fuel differential could at least be addressed if the Minister would take urgent action to see whether a two sovereign states protocol, with the approval of the EU and the legitimacy of equal competition, could be applied to Northern Ireland as a special and difficult case. I hope that the Minister's response will give some comfort to those whose businesses now face a very bleak future.
      5.45 pm
      Dr. Vincent Cable: I have been listening to this debate with mounting concern because what was a carefully assembled political consensus in support of environmental taxation appears to be steadily unravelling. It is unravelling in several different ways.
      We have heard about the road haulage problem, not merely from Opposition Members, but from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). We have heard about the problems in respect of petrol duties, especially in rural areas—we have just heard forcefully about that problem in Northern Ireland. In another context, we have seen how the Government have allowed powerful interests within the Confederation of British Industry to drive a coach and horses through their new energy taxation by exempting all the energy-intensive industries. It is a bit like exempting heavy smokers from cigarette duty. We need to ask why that is happening, what can be done to stop it, and what the consequences are.
      The Liberal Democrats strongly believe in the principle of environmental taxation, which is an effective way of preserving the environment. It does so in an economically efficient manner, working with the grain of the market. It sends signals to consumers and companies to change their behaviour and their fuels. Those who oppose it have a strong obligation to explain not just how they would replace the revenue, but how they would achieve the environmental objectives. One either abandons the objectives, or one achieves them through regulation. As we heard in the introduction of the Regulations on Small Businesses (Reduction) Bill earlier this afternoon, regulation is a costly way of achieving one's environmental ends. What is the alternative to environmental taxation?
      Environmental taxation works. Before this debate, I looked at the model that the Government use—the previous Government also used it—to estimate the impact of taxation changes. I apologise for the technical jargon, but the price elasticity of demand in the model for transport is very high at 0.4. If duties in the transport sector are doubled, within three or four years, usage and pollution are reduced by some 40 per cent., which is a bigger coefficient than for any other part of the economy.
      Perhaps the figures need updating—they are certainly not politically driven—but the evidence on which this Government are working, and on which the previous Government worked, suggests that environmental taxation in the transport sector is effective in achieving its objectives.
      Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman claims that the increase in fuel duties over the past few years has resulted
      182
      in a reduction in road traffic. That is not the case. Road traffic has increased exponentially over recent years despite the increase in petrol duty.
      Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that road traffic has increased, but many factors operate in that respect, including the growth of the economy, which is a counteracting factor. I am sure that the model is technically competent and takes that factor into account. The hon. Gentleman is right to imply that we need constantly to examine the assumption on which we base those calculations, which is why a few years ago, the Treasury Committee asked the Government to report back on the assumptions that they were using. Moreover, I am confident, given the consensus among them, that the technical people who develop those models are correct in believing that environmental taxation works.
      So far, we support what the Government have been doing with the escalator. However, we part company with them in our belief that they are letting this political consensus unravel because they are not being careful enough with the politics. We argue strongly that, instead of environmental taxation being used, as it is now, as a milch cow for the Treasury, it should be used in a hypothecated way. The revenues from environmental taxation, particularly of the transport sector, should be more clearly earmarked for public transport and reductions in vehicle excise duty, so that people in the transport sector can see where their tax revenue is going.
      Hypothecation is, to some extent, playing tricks with Treasury accounting. It does not raise additional money, but it helps politically to convince people, especially those in rural areas and in the transport industry, that their revenue is being used productively.
      Mr. Paterson: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's faith in the Government model. Already in this debate, we have had two examples in Ireland from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee showing that the effect of the escalator is to drive the Northern Irish haulage industry south of the border. What funds will be available to the Government if duties are paid to the Irish Government and not to the British Government?
      Dr. Cable: If all petrol and diesel duty were disappearing across the Irish frontier, the hon. Gentleman would be right. I think that he would accept that, with all due respect to the real problems of Northern Ireland, this matter is a little marginal to the United Kingdom economy as a whole.
      The hon. Gentleman has prompted me to turn to the specific issue of the diesel escalator and how it operates. There is some confusion. The assumption is that the diesel tax issue is purely about road haulage, but it is not. One of the main problems in the transport sector has been the gradual encroachment of diesels in the car market and all the pollution problems associated with that. That is one of the reasons why the Government were right to attack the disparity between the treatment of diesel and petrol. They have done that in the last two Budgets, and that has corrected an obvious anomaly that made no environmental sense.
      The other confusion that has arisen—the discussion of Northern Ireland highlighted this—is that there are two distinct ways in which the competitiveness problem

      183
      operates. One of them is the smuggling of fuel as a result of a differential in duty rates across a frontier. That has been described in some detail, and I recognise that it is a legitimate problem. It probably operates across the channel and in Ireland.
      However, there is a quite different problem for which different solutions are required, and that is the flagging out issue. I suspect that the problem is real, but exaggerated. We have been told for the past two years, especially by Conservative Members, about the horrendous problems of trying to operate businesses on the continent of Europe and the difficulties of payroll taxes, high business taxes and red tape. It is highly improbable that, on the strength of a relatively small but growing differential in duties on diesel, large numbers of British companies will up their roots and relocate in that highly unfriendly business environment.
      None the less, let us take these anecdotes at face value and let us assume that this is a real problem. What has been brought out in passing is that there is a solution. The hon. Member for Workington referred to the Swiss carnet, the Conservatives have suggested the Brit tax and there is the vignette: we are all describing the same idea in slightly different language. If such a system were implemented, it would, in large measure, solve the problem of flagging out—although not so much the problem of cross-border smuggling, which is being addressed.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) had another solution to this problem, which was the harmonisation of taxes. He foresaw that it would be proper to reduce our level of DERV tax to that pertaining on the continent. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker)? He said:
      "I think that the Government should concentrate on increasing European Union levels"—
      of fuel duty—
      "rather than on reducing them here".—[Official Report, 18 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 1346.]
      Dr. Cable: My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) was right. If there is a move towards harmonisation of duties in this area, it should come from increases in continental Europe.
      Another way of dealing with this problem would be to develop àn idea that has already been incorporated in the last two Budgets. The reduction of vehicle excise duties on lorries has been incorporated to a degree, and it could be taken further. A combination of the vignette, a reduction of vehicle excise duties on lorries and whatever voluntary efforts the Europeans make—we cannot persuade them to increase their own duties—would deal these problems.
      I suggest that the Europeans would be well advised to raise their own duties because many of the studies that have been done on the transport sector suggest that, even at present rates of the escalator, the social and environmental costs associated with road transport are not being met. A very effective study produced by Oxera, which is an Oxford-based consultancy whose leading consultant was widely used by the previous as well as the
      184
      present Government, shows the extent to which the social and environmental consequences of road haulage are still not properly captured in the tax system.
      One of the points that the study makes effectively is that heavy vehicles destroy the road track. A 40-tonne, five-axle truck apparently—I am not a technical expert—inflicts the same damage on the road system as 10,000 cars. That is a vastly disproportionate cost. Many of the pollution costs are also substantial, some of which, such as particulates, have been touched on. Diesel fuel is the source of 44 per cent. of particulates, and the percentage is growing. About 20 per cent. of the pollution associated with nitrogen originates with diesel, and that is the source of ground level ozone and the associated respiratory problems.
      The tax system does not fully capture the large environmental and track use costs related to road haulage.
      Mr. Bercow: I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises the political reverberations that his argument will cause. Is he aware that if he encourages the member states of the European Union to raise their excise duties, they will be doubly encouraged to exhort us to raise our income tax levels?
      Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well from previous debates that our approach to European integration does not include a belief that tax harmonisation in Europe is desirable in itself. That is why I did not lay emphasise on that recommendation when it was prompted by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). I would be happy, as I am sure would the road hauliers, if European countries voluntarily moved towards harmonisation of rates at a higher level.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. Cable: May I finish this point, and then I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      It is fine for the Government to accept the principle of environmental taxation and the escalator, but this sector needs a little bit of joined-up government. I have an example of a recent planning application on the borders of my constituency in south-west London. I am sure that hon. Members have similar examples in their constituencies. A nationalised industry, the Post Office, proposed to relocate its sorting office on a new site that was immediately adjacent to a railway line, the Feltham marshalling yards. Hounslow, the neighbouring planning authority, approved the application not as a rail-based sorting office, but as a road haulage project. There was no use of railways whatever.
      I prompted Railtrack to do a study and it suggested that rail use would have been profitable, although not enormously. I and my local council protested to the Secretary of State, and asked him to call in this application specifically to establish how committed the Government were to shifting from road freight to rail. The request was turned down and the project has been approved. It will go ahead as a road haulage project despite the adverse economic and environmental impact that it will have. It is one thing to raise more revenue from the road hauliers, but it is quite another to have an integrated policy that is manifestly lacking in that department.

      185
      We are less concerned about cross-border smuggling of petrol, although it clearly takes place in Ireland, and about the flagging out problem in relation to petrol. However, there is a different problem. We are all conscious of the fact that large amounts of revenue are being raised without any obvious comeback for the consumer—£1.5 billion has been suggested with regard to the escalator.
      6 pm
      The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has made some interesting calculations, demonstrating that if petrol duties had been linked to the retail prices index rather than the escalator, there would have been £5 billion less revenue from that source. We are talking about enormous sums, with no obvious return to the motorist. I believe that the Red Book shows a total of £70 million for rural public transport; that is a good gesture, but a very small one.
      We suggest that, to maintain what is a diminishing amount of political support for a basically sensible proposal—the escalator on petrol duties—the Government must show more political commitment to channelling their revenues into public transport on the one hand and the reduction of vehicle excise duty on the other, especially duty on smaller cars. Some progress has been made in that direction, but we feel that it could be taken much further.
      I want to say a little about the Government's new approach to energy taxation. It does not feature in the clause, but it is important to the debate, because in the long term, it will determine how much environmental taxation is raised from transport and how much is raised from other sectors of the economy. I am very worried—as, I think, are Members of all parties—about the way in which the new tax has been structured. I think that the system has been flawed from the outset, in that it exempts important sectors of the economy that could contribute to the carbon dioxide reduction targets to which the Government attach such importance.
      Perhaps most understandably, the household sector is exempted. Such taxation is regressive as it affects households, but there are other ways of dealing with the problem. The Government are not deterred from increasing cigarette duties, for instance. We may understand the Government's reasoning, but the fact remains that they have exempted an important sector of the economy that could have been influenced.
      Much less excusably, the Government have exempted energy-intensive industries. I believe that, in years to come, they will be severely questioned about their reasons for introducing a new round of environmental taxation that was so inconsistent and so flawed.
      I reiterate my party's support for the principle of environmental taxation and the principle of the escalator, but urge the Government to think more clearly about the opportunities for hypothecating revenue and for offsetting it in other ways, particularly reductions in vehicle excise duty. We are evolving a taxation system involving relatively low taxes on labour and profits in comparison with the rest of the continent, and relatively high taxes on pollution. That balance is right: we should be trying to preserve it, and the Government should be thinking much more carefully about how to reassemble the political consensus in favour of environmental taxation—a consensus that they are in danger of losing.
      Mr. Barry Gardiner: One of the most strenuous attacks on clause 2 was made by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) during last week's Opposition Day debate. In his speech he quoted one of his constituents, a haulier, who had complained to him that any more increases in fuel duty would be
      "the last nail in the coffin".—[Official Report, 21 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 915.]
      The question which that prompts is not simply, "Who put in the first nail?", but "Who built the coffin in the first place?". The answer, of course, is that it was the right hon. Member for Wells himself, and his fellow Conservative Ministers, who, when in government, introduced the fuel escalator in 1993—first at 3 per cent., and, in December that year, at 5 per cent.
      Hon. Members will note that, while the Opposition have sought to make much of the fact that the Government have raised the escalator in three Budgets in two years, they forgot to point out in debate that it was they who had pioneered the practice. It was during the second Budget speech that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and now "shadow Leader of the Opposition", the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), declared:
      "Any critic of the Government's tax plans who claims also to support the international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions will be sailing dangerously near to hypocrisy."—[0fficial Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 939.]
      Mr. Swayne rose—
      Mr. Gardiner: On that note, I willingly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Swayne: Does the assumption that the escalator does, indeed, constitute a coffin underlie what the hon. Gentleman has said so far?
      Mr. Gardiner: I concluded the last part of my remarks with the words
      "sailing dangerously near to hypocrisy".
      I used to work in shipping. It is clear to me from my professional experience that those who sail close to things usually end up with a shipwreck. Certainly, that is what has happened to the Conservative party since this whole misguided campaign began. Its integrity has gone down to Davy Jones's locker, hand in hand with its memory.
      It has been argued that the extra 1 per cent. put on the escalator by this Government has made the crucial difference to the industry. I asked the House of Commons Library to provide me with the differential between the cost of diesel today and the cost that would have obtained had the Conservative's 5 per cent. escalator continued on target. The answer was just 4.29p per litre—but that figure relates only to the escalator, and, as hon. Members know, the escalator was on top of inflation. What, then, could the industry have anticipated under the Conservatives had they remained in office?
      At the time of the last Conservative Budget, the underlying rate of inflation was 2.7 per cent.; today, under Labour, it is 2.1 per cent. That difference of 0.6 per cent. means that the true differential in the price of diesel between Conservative and Labour would be not 4.29p, but just 1.7p. The party which, during its term of office—according to the Library—imposed an increase totalling a massive 46.6 per cent. has dared to accuse this

      187
      Government of betraying the road haulage industry over an increase of just 1.7p. If that is betrayal, Goneril and Regan loved their father, Iago never stole a handkerchief, and Brutus was nowhere near Rome on the Ides of March.
      My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary spoke of a balance to be struck between environmental concerns and the industry—
      Mr. Woodward: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take us for an interesting and probably informative excursion through the reasons why the Conservative Government introduced the escalator, but I would like him to answer a question. If we now believe—the hon. Gentleman may say that he does not, of course—the evidence presented by the road haulage industry, and if we believe the evidence presented by a number of our constituents throughout the country that the escalator is causing severe problems, and if they are right in saying that some 26,000 jobs may be lost because of our failure to compete with our European counterparts—
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The intervention is too long.
      Mr. Gardiner: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own speech in due course, but I will deal with the issues that he raised, because they are legitimate and important. Indeed, I was about to do so.
      I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has had an opportunity to read the recommendation of the fourth report of the Select Committee on the Treasury, which says that it
      "would expect the Treasury to evaluate its effect next year"—
      meaning the effect of the increase in excise duty—
      "and report progress in the next Red Book".
      I consider that sensible. What I cannot believe is that the party which, for 20 years, folded its arms and muttered the mantra "market forces" as 30 per cent. of British manufacturing industry went into liquidation now affects horror, and demands that the Government save small, uncompetitive road hauliers. What I cannot believe is that the party that stamped on every strike and public demonstration with all the rigour that Norman Tebbit could muster is now cosying up to industry rebels who block the streets of London and prevent the people of London from going about their business. I suppose that it was at least a good Tory demonstration—it was held in Pall Mall, after all.
      I cannot believe that the party that has been apoplectic in its opposition to European tax harmonisation is now demanding that the Government should set their fuel duty only after doing an Esso price check at pumps across Europe.
      In seeking to strike out clause 2, the Opposition seek to deny the Exchequer £1.5 billion of revenue this year, and a total of £4.7 billion over the next three years. Yet, the Opposition offer no alternative way of raising that revenue. That is not responsible opposition, but opportunism. In this debate, the shadow Chancellor said that he believes that the social security budget should be cut. If that is so, where is his amendment to that effect?
      188
      What is his proposal? What would he cut—pensions, or disabled people's benefits? A responsible Opposition would come clean and state how they would cover that revenue shortfall, or what spending they would cut.
      I turn now to the fundamental question. For what purpose was the fuel duty escalator introduced? I hope that I may now be able to answer the question of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). In 1993, the Conservatives introduced the tax precisely to change behaviour—the behaviour of transporting goods by road haulage. Did they think that they could do that without any road hauliers going out of business? Of course not; that was the policy's objective. There is a logic in that that even Janus could not deny. If one raises duty to discourage road freight, one aims inevitably and precisely to put road hauliers out of business. To protest when that policy begins to work is not only madness but hypocrisy.
      The final hypocrisy is that the policy was introduced to meet the United Kingdom's emissions targets. When it came to signing the Kyoto resolution, the Opposition supported the Government on those targets.
      Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McNulty: Sit down; this is a serious debate.
      Mr. Gardiner: No; I shall not take any further interventions.
      Conservative Members' worst hypocrisy is to have supported us—as they did—when we signed the Kyoto targets, and to have agreed that the fuel escalator policy was designed to take freight off the roads, but now to cosy up to the road haulage industry, at the expense of our children's future.
      Mr. Gray: I am very pleased to contribute to this important debate. As many hon. Members are keen to contribute to it, I shall keep my remarks as short as I possibly can.
      Until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), I thought that I should be speaking on very much the winning side of the debate, as—apart from the rather limp speech of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—all the other speeches by Labour Members, in their own little way, opposed the escalator.
      I am happy also to follow the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). His speech has prompted Conservative Members to start drafting our press notices, and showed the Liberal Democrats in their true light, as the high-taxation party. My constituents in North Wiltshire shall be extremely interested, tomorrow, to read his remarks in Hansard.
      It is rather nice to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, North—who is an ambitious fellow, and has done his very best to support Government Front Benchers. He is probably one of the very few Labour Back Benchers who would do so. However, I suspect that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) probably more realistically and accurately represents Labour views on the issue than he does. Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) demonstrates, there are always plenty of Labour Members who are ready to be sufficiently sycophantic to support Ministers on any proposal, regardless of how controversial and unpopular it may be.

      189
      6.15 pm
      The hon. Member for Twickenham was, for two reasons, incorrect when he praised the escalator as an environmental tax. First, there is plenty of empirical evidence to show that there is absolutely no remaining elasticity in road usage. Over some years, as has so frequently been pointed out by Labour Members, the fuel price has increased exponentially—but so has road usage, which has increased much more than the fuel price.
      Most observers would accept that there is no relationship between the fuel price and the amount of road usage. Most fuel is used by, for example, company car drivers, who have to drive their mileage. A travelling salesman will not say, "I'm not going to go to the north of Scotland today, because they've raised the petrol price by 6 per cent." Therefore, elasticity is extremely limited. Unless one increased the petrol price by a gigantic amount—doubling or trebling it, which, as I shall contend later in my speech, may be precisely what the Government have in mind—or went to other such extreme lengths, it is extremely unlikely that, over the years, road usage will decrease.
      The hon. Member for Twickenham was wrong in his description of the escalator as an environmental tax for a second cogent reason: environmental taxation works, by definition, only if it discourages certain types of activity. One levies an environmental tax because one is saying to people, "That is an undesirable type of activity, and we don't want you to do it." Therefore, if the tax works, over the years, the Treasury's tax take will decrease. A successful environmental tax prevents people from doing something that is undesirable in the eyes of the law.
      The Red Book, however, states that the net tax take from the escalator will increase annually. Over the years, the escalator tax take has increased, demonstrating that—whatever else it may be—it is definitely not an environmental tax. It was designed to increase, not decrease, the amount of revenue that the Treasury takes. Only if the Red Book were to contain figures showing a downward spiral in the net take from the escalator would we be able to accept that it was an environmental tax.
      A variety of my hon. Friends have already described the appalling damage that the escalator would do to a variety of activities, and we have heard several constituency examples of its effect on hauliers. I should like to add an example from my own constituency—from C and H (Hauliers) Ltd. of Nettleton near Chippenham, in Wiltshire, from whom I received a letter this morning. It states:
      "The 11 per cent. increase in diesel duty now means that my foreign competitors can fill their trucks for half the cost to me."
      It is interesting that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury fully supports the tax. Perhaps that may be because of a quotation that I discovered recently. When asked by haulier Mr. Bob Stewart what a 38-tonne heavy goods vehicle might achieve in miles per gallon, the hon. Lady replied:
      "Well, I would imagine 45 miles per gallon; that's what my car does".
      It may be that the hon. Lady started from quite the wrong premise. She should know that the average truck does 7.5 miles per gallon—some one seventh of what her car does. If she calculated her figures in the recent Budget on the basis of her car, at 45 miles per gallon, I suggest
      190
      that this may be an opportunity to re-examine the figures, and to go back to hauliers and say, "I'm awfully sorry; we understand what went wrong."
      Mr. Roger Casale: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman was making a similar statistical error when he mentioned the lower price elasticity of demand for petrol. Perhaps he uses his car quite a lot and will not use it any less if the fuel price rises. However, before the debate, I took the precaution of checking on the matter with the Library, and that information indicates that the elasticity of demand is quite high. Customs and Excise estimates that a 1 per cent. increase in the price of petrol will lead to a 0.272 per cent. fall in consumption. That would be equivalent to reducing carbon dioxide by 5 million tonnes—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I must remind the Committee that interventions must be brief.
      Mr. Gray: I am grateful to you, Mr. Martin.
      I am also grateful for the lies, damned lies and statistics offered from across the Chamber. There are, of course, a million different ways of cutting that particular piece of cake, but in recent years—since the 1950s or 1960s—the price of petrol has increased by far more than the rate of inflation, yet during that time road usage has increased even more. That demonstrates that there is hardly any relationship between the price of petrol and the use of the roads. If there were, road usage would presumably have declined in recent years, and anybody who walks along the streets of London can see that that has not happened.
      The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) wondered whether I might be able to use my car more or less according to the price of petrol. That shows where he comes from. He speaks as an urban Member, interested only in urban people—his constituents, who can always jump on to a bus or a train. He was right to draw attention to the fact that my constituents in the country could not reduce their car use even if they wished to.
      Even if petrol cost £100 a gallon, my constituents, such as the old people who live in my village or the farmers who live down 10-mile drives, would still need their cars to get to the shops or to get their children to school, irrespective of the cost. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that country dwellers such as those whom I represent could not use their cars much less, but would be severely damaged by a continued increase in the escalator.
      Here is one more quotation from the road haulage industry. A letter from Brian Yeardley Continental Ltd. says:
      "Buying Diesel in the UK our company would spend at least £1,057,000 more annually than our competitors abroad".
      It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), talking about petrol and diesel being smuggled across the Irish border. I saw that myself when I was in South Armagh recently with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Through telescopes we watched huge petrol lorries crossing the border, entirely unchecked by the police or the Army. Such' operations form a significant part of the activity of the IRA.
      What similar activities shall we soon see in Calais? In that case it would not be smuggling, but if someone wants to take his lorry from Dover to Aberdeen and back, he does not have to fill it up in Dover. He can fill it up in

      191
      Calais, before it crosses the channel—and the operators have made it perfectly plain that that is what they will do. The Road Haulage Association is giving out something called the flagging out pack, which gives advice on how to do that and save enormous sums, not only on diesel but on VAT. I realise that VAT is not the subject of the clause, but it does parallel damage.
      Let us compare what the haulage industry is telling us with what the Minister of Transport is quoted as having said recently—a telling quotation, that shows us where the Budget comes from and what the Government are thinking:
      "UK operators do not suffer from any serious disadvantage over foreign competitors".
      Presumably that is why tens of thousands of them are blocking our streets—because they do not suffer from any disadvantage, and are perfectly happy to pay whatever the Government want them to pay for diesel. That is unbelievable, astonishing nonsense. It is amazing that the Minister responsible for transport should be able to stand up and say such a thing.
      There is another aspect of the debate that I, as a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, with a keen interest in environmental matters, find worrying. The argument has been advanced, both in the debate and in Treasury papers, that the purpose of the escalator is environmental. The Government say that it is nothing to do with income, or even with schools and hospitals, apart from as a small postscript. Apparently, the main reason why they want to keep the escalator going is to achieve their Kyoto targets.
      In his rather limp opening remarks, the Chief Secretary said something like, "We are determined to achieve Kyoto. We haven't yet achieved it, but the Conservatives have shown that they are no longer signed up to it." He was wrong, for several reasons.
      Anybody who knows anything about the Kyoto targets knows that we are already close to achieving the 12.5 per cent. reduction for which we signed up. Nothing further was needed in the Budget. To all intents and purposes, the target has been achieved, although that had nothing to do with cars and vehicles, but was a result of the dash for gas.
      Mr. Leslie indicated dissent.
      Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but according to the current figures, about 10.5 or 10.75 per cent. has already been achieved. We have nearly another 2 per cent. to go, but most people estimate that that will easily be achieved. That is why the Labour party, and the Deputy Prime Minister in particular, have said that 12.5 per cent. can easily be achieved, and that we are determined to aim for 20 per cent.
      The 12.5 per cent. reduction can be achieved without the escalator. We do not need it, so the straightforward hypocrisy of the Government becomes plain. They say that we are trying to save the planet and achieve our Kyoto targets, although any environmentally aware observer knows that the British target is already within sight.
      The fuel duty escalator merely masquerades as an environmental tax. Indeed, many of the environmental taxes now being discussed by the Economic Secretary
      192
      to the Treasury will also be merely masquerading. The Government should be straightforward and say "We need more money, so we are going to do this, that and the other." It is disgraceful for them to dress their taxes up as environmentally beneficial.
      The Government have made great play of the fact that the Conservatives introduced the escalator. They are right; we did. However, one gets on an escalator because one is on the ground floor. We were on the ground floor then; we had a huge carbon dioxide emission problem and our petrol price was one of the lowest in the world. We got on the escalator, and it was supposed to clock up increases for two or three years, until 2000.
      However, nobody in his right mind gets on an escalator to stay on it for ever. It was astonishing to hear the Minister say that he expected the 6 per cent. escalator to continue for ever. One of my hon. Friends has already pointed out that, in that case, the price of petrol will have doubled in 10 years. My maths is not up to working out what the percentage increase will be after that.
      The Minister talked as if the escalator would go on for ever, through the roof. We have continually challenged him to deny that, but he continues to talk in those terms. We would have got off the escalator when we got to the top, which by our own predictions would have been in 2000—this financial year.
      Mr. Leslie: Will the hon. Gentleman define exactly what the image of getting off the escalator means? Is he saying that fuel duty should be frozen now?
      Mr. Gray: Of course not; I am saying that we should get off the escalator now. In other words, broadly speaking, fuel duty should rise in line with inflation. That is, broadly speaking, the approach—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Is that party policy?"] It is right that our Treasury Front-Bench spokesmen should be cautious in their approach to such matters, but I speak from the Back Benches, and I am happy to call for such a freeze even without any form of endorsement from my Front Bench colleagues. None the less, they have made it plain that they oppose the escalator this year.
      Hon. Members can take it from me that because the Conservative party cares about the freight industry and about rural drivers, when we are in government in three years' time there will be enormous pressure from Conservative Members against our returning to the escalator.
      Sir Robert Smith: The problem that I have with the Conservatives' current claim to care is that in 1992 the Conservative party campaigned against the idea of a fuel duty escalator but then proceeded to implement one.
      Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman has found some conflicting evidence. All day we have been told that we were committed to the escalator in 1992-94, but the hon. Gentleman has apparently discovered a commitment by us to get off it. I am delighted to hear about it, because that is what I propose. Perhaps our policy has taken several years to implement.
      Sir Robert Smith rose—
      Mr. Gray: I have already dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point.

      193
      I must not become flippant, because this is an important subject. Of course we were committed to the escalator once, but then we introduced it and it did its job. The fact that we so wholeheartedly supported the Kyoto commitments, and the fact that the United Kingdom is near to achieving them, is testimony to what the escalator has done.
      By contrast, the Labour Government came into power saying that there would be no new taxation. In retrospect they say, "What we meant was that we wouldn't change the base rate of income tax." Even so, they were happy to abolish the 20 per cent. rate of income tax without the fact being announced in the Budget speech. None the less, the claim was, "No new taxation." Well, if that was told to the rural drivers in Chippenham and to the heavy goods vehicle drivers in my constituency, the sound of laughter would be heard all the way from north Wiltshire.
      Drivers in Scotland especially will pay the price. I spent last weekend campaigning in the country where I was born, brought up and educated. This is a huge issue in my native land. Hauliers in the north of Scotland have a greater problem than anyone, because they have so much further to go. The road fuel escalator problem will be a huge matter in the run-up to 6 May, both in the elections for the Scottish Parliament and in the local government elections south of the border. If we have our way, the Government will pay the price for this disgraceful tax.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Derek Twigg: In his speech earlier, the shadow Chancellor spoke about stealth taxes and said that the Government were not open about what they were doing. However, it is interesting to look at the Conservative manifesto for the 1992 general election. It is hard reading, but I managed to get through it. It makes no mention of the fuel duty escalator, nor of the 22 taxes that the Conservative Government subsequently introduced. That is worth noting.
      Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) did not seem to understand the point that I made earlier. Not only did the 1992 Conservative manifesto not mention the fuel duty escalator, but on the street the party campaigned against it. The Conservatives said at the time that they would not get on the escalator but, once they were elected, they were happy to do so.
      Mr. Swayne: And look what happened to them.
      Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) for clarification of the point that he made earlier, which I now understand completely.
      It is interesting that no Conservative Members have tabled an amendment to the clause, perhaps because no one knows what amendment the different wings of the party might support. The safer option has been chosen—simply to vote against the clause standing part of the Bill. I do not know to which wing of the Conservative party the shadow Chancellor belongs on this matter.
      It is easy to get the impression, from this debate, that the fuel duty escalator did not exist under the Tory Government, that petrol tax was never increased, and that the road fund licence did not go up. One would think that it was a different world for road users only a couple of
      194
      years ago. However, the record shows that the escalator was introduced by the Tories. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), the former Paymaster General, told the House on 23 January 1995:
      "I know that a car is often a necessity, but all motorists must think about the environmental consequences of what they do."
      He went on to say that
      "petrol and fuel costs are but one component in the budgets of those who live in rural areas. Plenty of other things are cheaper in rural areas … I accept that some things are more expensive in rural areas. Some things are more expensive in urban areas. That is the interplay of a market"—[Official Report, 23 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 103-04.]
      The shadow Chancellor seemed to suggest that in some way what the Government are doing is causing job losses and people to lose their houses. He omitted to say that, under Tory tax and economic policies, there was record homelessness, and that record numbers of people lost their houses and were thrown out of work. In addition, 5,000 haulage companies went out of business.
      Conservative Members seem to want to pretend that the slate is clean and that nothing happened under the Tory Government. The shadow Chancellor said that the Conservative party opposes the escalator for now, and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that it would oppose the escalator this year. When I asked whether the Conservative party would support the fuel duty escalator at any time in the future or whether it would be ruled out in the party's next election manifesto, I received no answer.
      That says a lot about the Conservative party, which cannot be trusted on these matters. Perhaps we will explore that in greater detail as the debate progresses.
      Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he will fight the next election on a commitment to keep the escalator, or to drop it?
      Mr. Twigg: Our policy is clear, and was presented in the Budget. Conservative Members will not make a statement about their party's intentions. As usual, they try to hide instead, but that is the difference between us.
      Various leaflets from the Automobile Association and other sources have presented a breakdown of each £10 spent on fuel. Of that total, £8.50 is accounted for in tax, but £7.70 of that was imposed by the previous Tory Government two years ago. This Government have introduced an increase in the fuel duty escalator of 7p a litre, but the increase under the previous Government was 26p.
      Mr. David Ruffley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Twigg: In a moment. I want to make some progress.
      The figures that I have quoted show a clear difference between the actions of this Government and their predecessor. As I said earlier, 5,000 hauliers went out of business under the Tory Government, but I have yet to hear any apology for that from Conservative Members. They seem to have forgotten totally all the people who have lost businesses, houses or jobs, and the effect that those losses had on the economy.

      195
      A balance must be struck between road haulage and the environment. Clearly, lorries and heavy goods vehicles have a greater impact on the environment than cars. Lorry usage on motorways and roads causes a disproportionate amount of damage, and that problem must be tackled. Many people complain about the number of lorries on our roads, and any Government must deal with that.
      Mr. Burney: Does the hon. Gentleman have any rural constituents? If so, is he trying to tell the Committee that none of them has written to complain about this disgraceful hike in petrol duty?
      Mr. Twigg: Hale village is the only rural area in my constituency. People who live there have welcomed the Government's integrated transport policy, which will mean that buses will go to villages such as Hale on a more regular basis. Under the previous Government, those services did not exist. That is the main concern: certainly, no one from Hale has written to me about the increase in fuel duties. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
      Also conspicuous by its absence today is any condemnation by Tory Members of the terrible effects of the recent disruption by lorry drivers of various towns and cities around the country. That disruption caused snarl-ups on many roads and had terrible effects on people's ability to get to work or go about their business. I have not heard any Conservative Member condemn the action, although perhaps one of them will do so today.
      Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again. Is he on the point of condemning strike action in the public services, which is clearly the logic of his argument?
      Mr. Twigg: I gave Conservative Members an opportunity to condemn the actions of the lorry drivers, but none has taken advantage of it. It may be that they support that action.
      Mr. Paterson: I have spoken about this issue since July and at every public meeting I have made it clear that it is not in the lorry drivers' interests to disrupt the public just when the public are being convinced that the drivers' cause is a good one. Does the hon. Gentleman have any evidence that one essential load has not been carried because of the fuel escalator?
      Mr. Twigg: It is interesting to see the split developing between hon. Members on the Opposition Front and Back Benches. That might be a symptom of the machinations of the past few days that we have read about in the press. One wonders what is the real view of the Conservative party, but we may get some interesting comments later.
      Mr. Paterson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, but he has specifically invited interventions from Conservative Members. I hope that he will answer the question that I asked a moment ago: can he give any evidence that the escalator has reduced the carriage of freight? Have any essential loads not been carried because of it?
      Mr. Twigg: I find that point astonishing because it was the Conservatives who introduced the escalator and
      196
      carried on increasing it. The hon. Gentleman might ask himself his rhetorical question after he has had a look into history.
      There are interesting questions around the subject of lorries and freight movements. Over the past six to 12 months I have held discussions with representatives of large multinational companies in my constituency about whether freight can be moved off the roads and on to rail. One point often raised is the marginal cost of that decision. For example, it would be difficult in the case of 44-tonne lorries.
      The decision is marginal, but the companies have strong views on how they can improve their commitment to the environment, and they want to consider the switch. One company is still going down that road, but another felt unable to make a case for transferring freight to rail. The interesting points raised emphasise the importance of the Government's case.
      We want a strong haulage industry that employs people. However, we must ask how we can put more freight on to rail by making it a better business proposition for companies. That is a particular issue in my area where chemical industries such as ICI, Albright and Wilson, and Elf Atochem are discussing whether they can develop a rail head for freight. Many dangerous chemicals are transported by road, and the companies argue that it would be environmentally safer if more could be moved by rail.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: There is an easy way to move freight off roads and on to rail. All we have to do is run a policy for cheap rail freight. Immediately, huge volumes of freight would transfer.
      Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We can consider several options for creating incentives to move freight to rail, but we must make it competitive for businesses to do so. The Government have made clear commitments on public transport and on moving more freight by rail. Most people would support those policies.
      Sir Robert Smith: Rail freight is attractive and preferable, but the hon. Gentleman must realise that since Lord Beeching, in vast tracts of Scotland, such as my constituency, rail freight is not an option because there is not even a railway line.
      Mr. Twigg: Many years of Tory Government are responsible for most of that. I do not know West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine very well, but in my area, with the Mersey and Liverpool docks, the Manchester ship canal, the west coast line and rail links to Wales and Holyhead, freight is an attractive option. The hon. Gentleman will accept that I cannot talk for every part of the country.
      Whatever happens, companies in the haulage industry will face some difficulties. There are questions of competitiveness and efficiency, and there will always be some shake-out or change. However, in response to the point that there has been no consultation on the clause, I must say that the Government have set up a forum with the haulage industry. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport said:
      "It is not I who maintain that the road haulage forum is constructive. Let me quote the Freight Transport Association after the first meeting, which stated that it was

      197
      'very impressed and encouraged by the will, intent and urgency of the forum to get to grips with our industry's problems without delay'."—[Official Report, 21 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 964.]
      In spite of reservations raised by the Conservatives and others, the Government have made a clear commitment. They are listening to the hauliers with whom they are holding a dialogue. The Government should be supported for that.
      6.45 pm
      One further problem must be addressed. The Conservative party has not offered any alternative with which to fill the funding gap if the escalator were abolished. That is often the case with the Conservatives of course. Perhaps they would cut social security, benefit for disabled people, education or investment in public transport. Who knows? The Conservatives have not said, and that says much about them. They have no policy, but the Government do have a policy and that policy will succeed in the best interests of the country.
      Mr. Swinney: I shall concentrate on some important points. We are dealing with a vital subject that affects all walks of life in our economy. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) has mentioned the lack of availability of public transport links in his constituency, and my neighbouring constituency is similarly large and rural.
      We should begin with some history of the fuel duty escalator, which was introduced by the Conservatives in 1993 at 3 per cent. It was subsequently increased to 5 per cent., and the Chancellor has increased it to 6 per cent. above inflation. We are not, we should recall, dealing with the matter as a one-off issue: this is the third time that I, a Member elected in 1997, have dealt with it under a Labour Government.
      It is not unrealistic to expect that by the end of this Parliament a gallon of petrol will cost £4.30, and a gallon of diesel £4.35. When we consider those costs, we can clearly see the difference they make to the working of the economy and to the increased cost base affecting many of our constituents and the businesses that employ them.
      It is ironic that we are considering spiralling fuel costs at a time when this country—particularly Scotland—is producing oil. We are an oil-producing country, but we have some of the highest petrol prices in Europe. The rate at which prices have increased, and their levels in comparison with those of several of our European competitors, are important issues.
      I shall concentrate on what I consider to be the real impact of the fuel duty escalator in four specific areas. First, it affects employment. The Freight Transport Association has supplied several Members with estimates of the impact that it considers the escalator will have on employment. It suggests that more than 50,000 jobs could be at risk as a result of the resulting increase in business costs.
      We have already heard of the danger of haulage companies deciding to up sticks from the United Kingdom to find alternative bases in Europe. From my political position, I find that argument fascinating. I am often told, particularly at the moment by Labour Members, that the possibility of constitutional change may mean businesses automatically leaving Scotland. Yet I hear from Ministers that there is absolutely no way in which the application
      198
      of punitive fuel duty escalators will mean that businesses will want to leave the United Kingdom for other parts of Europe. That is a curiously contradictory argument.
      Secondly, the escalator will have an impact on the cost of services. In large rural areas such as the constituency that I represent, every walk of life is affected by increases in fuel costs. It hits the cost of goods put on the shelves of local shops with fragile budgets in isolated areas. It impacts on the costs that local authorities have to bear to provide home help services and other care support in rural areas. The cost of all aspects of services will increase. The burden does not fall only on shopkeepers who are trying to sustain businesses in fragile areas but on local authorities that are already wrestling with enormous pressures on their budgets while continuing to extend and broaden the services provided to vulnerable people.
      Mr. Leslie: How much revenue would be forgone to Scottish public services if the fuel duty escalator was not kept?
      Mr. Swinney: I can divide the figure in the Red Book to make a calculation about the Scottish economy, but the Government must get their lines of argument correct. I have listened for a good few hours, albeit with a time-out to make some telephone calls, to Ministers saying that this is all about environmental targets. Either it is about money or the environment; it cannot be both or either as it suits them. We have become terribly familiar with that characteristic under this Government.
      The third area on which the fuel duty escalator impacts is infrastructure, on which I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). He said that the collapse of the political consensus on the issue came about partly because road users did not feel that the penalty of the fuel duty escalator flowed through into investment in infrastructure. That is a fair point. People who are almost dependent on roads, particularly in rural areas, do not feel that infrastructure is being improved enough. When we try even to secure modest road improvements in Scotland, there seems to be paralysis in the Scottish Office in determining where they will be made. Those issues directly affect our communities.
      Finally, there is the question of rural communities. I have considered the impact on jobs and service provision but we must also consider the matter in terms of the purpose of the Government's measures. If they are designed to reduce car and lorry usage and the volume of traffic—I accept that that is a possible Government motive—we must consider how realistic it is to expect such a change of road use pattern. In most of my constituency, people who want to be employed somewhere five, 10 or 20 miles away could not sustain such jobs using public transport; it would at least be very difficult.
      The Government have made much of their measures to try to compensate for the disadvantages of rural areas, such as the rural transport fund. Its resources were enhanced by the Chancellor in his March Budget statement. Given the nature of my constituency, I was keenly interested in how the fund would work and what impact it would have there. I thought that it might have been a genuine attempt by the Government to mollify some of the harsher effects of their policy. To my horror, I found that in my large rural constituency in Scotland,

      199
      only three petrol stations would be eligible for assistance. One has already gone out of business, so we are down to two. In vast areas, the supply of petrol is doubtful. I doubt whether the Government's measures will make much difference. If the Government want to deliver their objectives on fuel usage and the impact on the environment, they must recognise that a stronger and more sophisticated public transport system is the key, not penalising road users for whom fuel is essential.
      Debates such as this are always better informed by real experience. Two cases have come to my attention, one from within my constituency, one from without. Last week, I visited Bellwood Nurseries, an interesting company near the town of Alyth that supplies mature trees for landscaping contracts throughout the United Kingdom and western Europe. It is trying to make its way in the world through the great commitment of its management and staff. It estimates that its haulage costs will increase by about £10,000 because of the application of the fuel duty escalator. It would break commercial confidentiality if I told the Committee the proportion of its profits involved, but it is a substantial aspect of its cost base. Into the bargain, the most competitive company in the provision of haulage services to Bellwood Nurseries is leaving the Scottish economy to relocate to Calais. Bellwood Nurseries will have to procure alternative, more expensive haulage services on top of already higher costs as a result of the fuel duty escalator. That is a double whammy of rising fuel costs and the demise of a competitive haulage sector.
      I have mentioned the example from outwith my constituency before. Norfrost in Caithness is a successful refrigeration equipment company. It transports its products across the United Kingdom and Europe and is heavily dependent on road haulage. It is increasingly trying to diversify into a broader range of freight transport services by using rail. It finds the support that it is being given for that positive. It estimates that the fuel duty escalator will add £100,000 to its annual running costs, a severe competitive disadvantage.
      I met some hauliers earlier this afternoon. One mentioned a haulage company in Scotland that is registering its vehicles in the Republic of Ireland and having its MOTs done there to save £4,000 per vehicle in registration costs. I have not had a chance to consider that closely this afternoon, but the numbers are alarming.
      The Chief Secretary's argument, which I am sure that we will hear again from the Economic Secretary, stressed the environment and the protection given to rural areas. He also said how supportive the Government were of the road haulage industry. I was therefore surprised to read in the newspapers the other day the refreshing candour of one of Labour's candidates for the Scottish Parliament, Mr. Jim Stevens, who is standing for the constituency represented in Westminster by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan). Mr. Stevens labelled the fuel duty escalator
      "a poll tax on wheels".
      He said that rural voters were "seeing through" the Government's argument and that compensation in the form of rural transport services amounted to nothing. He said:
      "That becomes irrelevant in an area like Galloway where people have little alternative to the car and where there is no public transport.
      200
      Fuel price rises of this order hit people in rural areas, especially the poor, hard and much harder than people in urban areas. The tax is regressive because it hits poor people as much as it hits rich people.
      And it is a double whammy because petrol companies subsidise prices in urban areas which runs totally against Government environmental policy aimed at reducing car pollution in cities."
      Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The case is even stronger, because such taxes hit poor people harder than wealthy people. People who drive elderly cars do not have the fuel efficiency that the Economic Secretary enjoys and will suffer more.
      Mr. Swinney: That is a fair point. Poor people who live in isolated parts of my rural constituency will not make 50 or 60-mile round trips to cities to buy supermarket priced petrol, from which people who can afford to do weekly or monthly shops benefit.
      Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is the Government's plan to tax the poor more heavily as a means of encouraging them to become richer?
      7 pm
      Mr. Swinney: The hon. Gentleman is more able to penetrate the deepest thinking of the Government and their bizarre notions than me. The escalator is certainly a tax on the poor, as Labour candidate for the Scottish Parliament seat of Galloway and Upper Nithsdale said very effectively in that newspaper article. I am sure that it has not escaped the notice of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale whom I am delighted to see here from the campaign trail.
      Just after the Budget, a rather indiscreet remark was made by Lord Sewel, the Minister with responsibility for agriculture and fisheries in Scotland. It was a fascinating example of the rebuttal machine of the Labour Government coming into play quickly. He said in a casual moment that in applying the fuel duty escalator the Government had underestimated the ferocity of the reaction and misjudged the public mood. I can trace only one newspaper in which that comment managed to reach the surface, after it was expunged from any possible recollection by anyone else. His comment gave the game away.
      I intervened in the Chief Secretary's speech to ask him to clarify the status of an article that appeared in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday, which suggested that the Government had been chastened by the reaction to the fuel duty escalator and were in the process of giving a commitment that it would not be applied in the future. The Chief Secretary referred me to the Red Book, which confirms that it will be applied for the remainder of this Parliament. Obviously, this is a matter of enormous significance. We need clarity about the Government's intentions. It is bad enough having to face the effects of the escalator in this Budget. If we can, as a result of the enormous pressure applied by various sectors, manage to constrain the Government's use of it in the future, that would at least be of some benefit to those who are hard pressed.
      The article in The Daily Telegraph cited ministerial sources as the origin of the story about the Government's U-turn. I find it fascinating that it commented on the ferocity of the campaign against the escalator that has

      201
      been waged in Scotland, to which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) referred, and to the activities of my party in raising the issue during the Scottish election campaign. I hope that the Economic Secretary will be able to clarify the Government's position and announce tonight that the Government will step back from that punitive taxation on the poor and rural communities of Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Has my hon. Friend noticed that there is not a single Labour Member representing a Scottish constituency present on the Government Benches?
      Mr. Swinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that piece of information.
      Mr. Swayne: Shocking.
      Mr. Swinney: It is shocking, but not exactly surprising. I shall be interested to look at the voting record for the Division at 10 o'clock this evening, or whenever it is, to see into which Lobby Labour Members who represent rural constituencies such as mine trooped. It will be fascinating to see what all the huff and puff about rural transport amounts to when it comes to their putting their vote where their mouth is.
      The road fuel duty escalator is doing enormous damage to the Scottish economy and the rural economy. It is shortsighted and uncompetitive and the Government should listen carefully to the strong representations that have been made not only by Opposition Members but convincingly by Labour Members.
      Mr. Hayes: The—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]. I am delighted to receive that badge of recognition and warm support from my colleagues.
      The haulage industry, like much of the countryside, believes that it is under attack from the Government. There is no question about that. We can debate at length whether it is really under attack from the Government, but it certainly believes that it is under attack. The industry also believes that it is under attack from the Minister. It rings a bit hollow with hauliers in my constituency when they are told that a forum is being set up after the event. After all this has been done, a forum is being set up to discuss why it has been done. It is not a forum for discussion or a consultative group to plan the best way of dealing with the issue before the tax is increased. It a forum to try to pacify the industry after the tax is increased. That is what it amounts to. We welcome the forum because it is better than nothing, but how much better it would have been if the Government had shown an honest commitment to the countryside and the haulage industry by setting up a forum before the measure was introduced.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker—I am sorry, Mr. Butterfill, I was promoting you for a moment. The anger and bitterness in the industry is well summarised by a letter that I received from a small haulier in my constituency, Healey Transport of Pinchbeck in South Holland. I read the letter with deep concern, as I am sure that the whole House will receive it. Mr. Healey said:
      "These outrageous taxes are severely damaging businesses like mine in your constituency."
      202
      I did not take that at face value. Being a diligent Member of the House, I wanted to examine that claim in greater detail, so I telephoned Mr. Healey to ask him some questions and to justify his assertion. He told me that his £800,000 turnover business was suffering an increase of £25,000 per annum as a result of the escalator. That is £25,000 in additional overheads for a small business. Those of us who have been in business appreciate just how significant that is in annual terms for such a business. It will undoubtedly push some businesses such as Mr. Healey's to the brink of disaster. It will certainly mean that they cannot expand.
      We heard, however, from the Chief Secretary that haulage businesses needed to reinvest to improve their fleet and make their vehicles more fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly. Do the Government not realise that the only way in which companies will be able to do that is by using their profits to reinvest in their assets? That will not happen if the Government take money away from them in additional tax. That money might have been used to improve the fleet, make it more fuel-efficient and bring it up to the level of the best in the industry about which the Chief Secretary spoke; but that will not happen now, because Mr. Healey simply will not have the money to do that. Hauliers throughout my constituency, including Fowler Welch, which I mentioned in last week's debate, Spalding Haulage and many others, are being pushed to a similar position of jeopardy.
      I shall now make some specific points not yet covered. The first is that the extra fuel costs have a disproportionate effect on rural communities. Let me explain that in a little more detail. I do not mean simply the extra costs endured by people living in remote communities because they have to use their car to get to the basic necessities of life—to work, to school, to hospital, and so on. I mean that hauliers are disproportionately based in rural areas. My hauliers have asked me, "What do you expect us to do—to change the places where they grow potatoes, vegetables and cut flowers?" Those places are static, so the hauliers have to be based there. Typically, those places are a long way from where products are retailed. Of course, haulage companies are based in rural areas, because rural areas produce the goods that haulage companies carry. There is no alternative for them.
      The hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) spoke about the desirability of moving freight on to the Mersey or on to rail. That is impossible in large parts of the country because we do not have access there to alternative means of haulage. He really ought to know that. It is insulting for him to say that companies ought to move to rail, when most places have not had suitable railway lines for 35 or 40 years.
      Mr. Derek Twigg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hayes: I will give way, but, if the hon. Gentleman is going to come out with drivel about the previous Government cutting the railways, when most railway lines disappeared in the 1950s and 1960s, he had better think first.
      Mr. Twigg: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there are no opportunities to get freight on to rail?
      Mr. Hayes: There are some opportunities, but in significant areas they are limited. It is simply not a

      203
      practical alternative in large sections of rural Britain to talk about moving haulage from road to rail. It is simply not possible to move to where the goods are produced. The knock-on effect is felt by the producer, the food industry and a range of related businesses which will suffer additional costs and inconvenience.
      Mr. Woodward: When my hon. Friend was considering the problems that have been induced in rural areas, did he take note of the comments of members of the National Farmers Union? They calculated that tens of millions of pounds in road costs would be added to the farming business and, in many cases, would push an already depressed industry over the edge.
      Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend is right to request amplification of a point that I made at the beginning of my speech: it is not just the haulage industry, but the whole countryside, that feels under attack from the Government. This latest episode is merely another instalment in the story of the abuse of our rural heritage, our countryside and our rural economy that has been going on since 1997. I do not deny that there were problems before that, but they have been exacerbated and intensified under the Labour Government.
      Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us who introduced the fuel escalator?
      Mr. Hayes: Repetition has its place in politics, but it is not necessarily a place that I should want to occupy with the same alacrity as the hon. Gentleman.
      My second point relates to the impact of the measure on small businesses. I have mentioned some of the larger companies in my constituency, including Fowler Welch, which I also mentioned last week. That company has taken the option of taking over a small continental haulage firm in order to run some of its fleet from the continent. However, that opportunity is not available to small hauliers. We are talking about small local companies moving local goods domestically. They cannot occupy different ground; they are obliged to continue doing what they do now. Their work is typically with small producers. Small producers make disproportionate use of small community-based family haulage firms, which are especially affected by the measure. As some hon. Members have pointed out, it is true that some hauliers will be forced to flag out and to relocate on the continent. However, many do not have that option because of where they are based and the size and nature of their business. The measure is a disproportionate attack on small business.
      My third point relates to cars. We must be clear that, in many rural communities, the car is a necessity. It is a fact of life for many people; it is not possible for them to have any quality of life without access to a car. The problem with this fuel tax is that it is regressive. It affects poor and rich alike and has an especially damaging effect on the poor, the elderly and the disabled. It will affect the people who will suffer most from being restricted to their small village or hamlet. Indeed, in my constituency, where the population is sparse, some people do not even live in a village or a hamlet; some live in an extremely isolated spot somewhere in the middle of the fens, and, without access to a car, they will have no quality of life.
      204
      The measure will affect not only economic opportunities, but social and cultural opportunities. We should not ignore those. It is all very well for the Government to look back to a halcyon age when no one travelled more than five miles to do anything, but I assure them that, nowadays, the vast majority of people would not want to live that type of life. If that is the halcyon age to which the Government aim to return us, they will have a rude awakening from most British people when they put it to the test.
      Mr. Leslie: For the record, in the distinguished parliamentary career before the hon. Gentleman, will he tell us now whether he will ever again vote for an increase in road fuel duty?
      Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman pays me great tribute when he refers to my distinguished parliamentary career—it will look very good in Hansard. I certainly do not want to dispute the point. I hope that my career will be increasingly distinguished, but, for the record, I want to ensure that the fact that I received such a plaudit from a Labour Member is amplified.
      As for the hon. Gentleman's question, the answer is simple. One must judge the matter on the basis of the facts that are presented at the time. The truth is that Governments have to take decisions based on the prevailing circumstances. My judgment is that the fuel escalator has done its job and that we do not need to increase fuel duty. We certainly do not need to increase diesel prices by 11.6 per cent. at present. We have heard from the Conservative spokesmen—who certainly speak on this subject with far more authority than I do—that they do not believe that the escalator should continue. In future Budgets under a Conservative Government, when we are re-elected in three years' time, we may well need to consider the possibility of increases in petrol duty in the light of the prevailing circumstances. That is the honest answer, and the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) would expect nothing less from me. However, I do not think that we should consider the escalator—or anything like it—because we feel that it has gone far enough; it has done its job and it has come to the end of the road.
      Obviously, the Government do not accept that; they do not believe that it is important to maintain low petrol prices for poor people, rural communities or the haulage industry. That is a frank difference of opinion, which we have begun to explore during the past few weeks. However, the Government would do well to be honest with the British people about that difference of opinion. We do not want more soft words or spins in The Daily Telegraph, when the Government tell us that they are looking at the matter again. We know very well that they are not looking at it again. We do not want to be told one thing in the media and another from the Dispatch Box. We want an honest and open debate on the matter.
      From what we have heard tonight, it seems to me that Conservative Members acknowledge the pain and suffering that are being inflicted on rural, and other, communities and the difficulties facing the haulage industry, but that most Labour Members do not. Perhaps they do, but they do not care. I prefer to think that they do not understand, rather than that they do not care.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. McNulty: In relation to honesty, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the much-vaunted notion that £8.50 in every £10 spent on fuel is tax, £7.70 of that £8.50 was being paid before 1 May 1997? We are actually talking about 80p for every £10 spent on fuel. Is the answer yes or no?
      Mr. Hayes: In response to an earlier intervention, I tried to make the point that it is cumulative—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will comprehend that. The latest increase comes on top of those that have been made before. I do not want to stray into speaking doggerel like the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), but this is the straw that broke the camel's back. I cannot bring into my speech Iago, Caesar, Brutus and Davy Jones's locker as he did, because I do not share his skills in lyricism.
      Mr. Brady: May I assist my hon. Friend by adding that the Government are fiddling while Rome burns?
      Mr. Hayes: Far be it from me to try to match the rhetoric of my hon. Friend, but the point needs to be made that the measure comes on top of previous increases. We can debate all night whether those increases were right or wrong. In a brave speech, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said honestly that he disagreed with those previous increases. Conservative Members took the contrary view that the increases were right, because of the price of petrol and the competitive situation of our industry at that time. However, we are tonight debating not history, but what is happening today. The hauliers and those who have to pay extra for their petrol will not be impressed to hear Labour Members going on about what happened 10 years ago, rather than debating, honestly and openly, this increase, this Budget, this pain and this suffering.
      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: It is interesting to hear Labour Members complaining about the position of the previous Government. We have suffered three Budgets in two years and the haulage industry has suffered three extremely large increases—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak to the Chair."] I apologise, Mr. Butterfill. The matter is causing a great deal of difficulty, especially to small haulage businesses in our constituencies.
      Mr. Hayes: As ever, my hon. Friend speaks with great alacrity on these matters—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Lucidity."]—Perhaps I was thinking of lucidity.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Brevity.
      Mr. Hayes: Indeed, brevity as well. Having said that, my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) is correct to point out that the Government have not only got it wrong this time, but got it wrong repeatedly. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) said that people were now seeing through the Government. He made a good speech, but on that point I disagree with him: it is not that people are now seeing through the Government; they have already seen through the Government. They have had two years to see through the Government.
      Mr. Woodward: There is always a danger of Government Members wanting to talk about history,
      206
      when the reality is that road hauliers face bankruptcy because of the current Government's policy. We have to take account of the fact that our European competitors are not increasing excise duty in the same way that we are, with the result that our hauliers are finding their position extremely uncompetitive. In my view, we should protect the livelihoods of our own people.
      Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend brings me to my penultimate point. One of the disappointments felt by hon. Members and the industry is caused by the Government's lack of understanding of the competitive position in which their measure puts our haulage industry. The Minister of Transport said:
      "I'm convinced that you don't suffer from any serious competition … The fuel duty escalator is here to stay … I have never met a business man yet who goes out of business and says it is his fault."
      The problem with that approach is that it reveals cavalier arrogance, disregard and contempt—it is similar to the comment about whingeing hauliers. Such comments do nothing to commend the Government for their sympathy or understanding of the wider community.
      Mrs. Gorman: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the "let them eat cake" political argument?
      The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid)rose—
      Mr. Hayes: I think that Marie Antoinette is about to intervene.
      Dr. Reid: As I have said several times before, although the last sentence of that quote is accurate, the first two are not. It is absurd to suppose that my view is that there is no competition, and I have never said that.
      I dare say that I have met more hauliers today than the hon. Gentleman has, and I shall continue to talk to them. I started today talking with Mr. Sandy McCracken, a haulier, and then met several of his friends. I then met five major hauliers through the Freight Transport Association, spoke to the council of the FTA, and came back here and met the general-secretary of the Road Haulage Association. I am always available to talk to hauliers.
      Mr. Hayes: I am delighted to hear that the Minister is doing so much talking, but actions speak louder than words. The Government would have done well to consult and listen before introducing the measure, rather than doing so afterwards. It is good that they are talking now and that they are showing at least a degree of guilt for their action—the fact that they are exercising their guilty conscience is healthy and good, but they should have consulted before they acted.
      Mr. Paterson: Does the Minister's reply not contrast dramatically with the decisive action taken by the French Government, who also signed the Kyoto accord, but who have introduced a rebate so that French hauliers are competitive with Luxembourg hauliers? A socialist Government introduced that measure last October.
      Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the willingness of Governments in competitor nations to support their industry more vigorously and

      207
      enthusiastically than the Labour Government are prepared to support the British haulage industry. That is cause for sorrow, regret and considerable disappointment.
      In his opening speech, the Chief Secretary advised the industry not to get too close to the Opposition, but he should understand that the industry is bound to get close to the Opposition when it sees that the Opposition are listening, responding and learning and that they are prepared to share its concerns and to act on them. The industry sees nothing of that in the Government. The industry will continue to become closer to us and to work with us for the benefit of the industry, the countryside, people and jobs, because it knows that it will get no such response from the Government.
      Mr. Roger Casale: The first thing to say about clause 2 is that it forms part of a Budget that sets a framework both for stable economic growth and for growth that will be sustainable. Secondly, clause 2 reflects the proper concern of Government, in framing Budget policies, to do so on the basis of a settled and balanced view of what is in the best long-term interests of the country as a whole, reconciling the complex and sometimes conflicting pressures of economic, social and environmental concerns. Clause 2 is not motivated by short-term political opportunism; it does not neglect the interests of any key stakeholders, although pandering to no one group; it does not leave out of account any key argument or fail to take fully into consideration any key facts.
      Moreover, like other aspects of the Bill, clause 2 is notable for the fact that it does not cast aside every policy or measure introduced by the previous Government—although there was much in the Budget that is genuinely new. Therefore, it is all the more curious that the Opposition should have chosen to oppose that part of the Finance Bill that builds most directly on a policy that they introduced when in government—namely, the fuel duty escalator.
      In the interests of constructive debate during Committee stage, I do not wish to provoke further the Opposition by repeating the oft-quoted remark that, by opposing clause 2, they are sailing dangerously close to hypocrisy. Instead, I invite them to apologise for having introduced the fuel duty escalator in the first place—after all, it is not hypocritical to admit that one made a mistake in the past and to try to put things right in the future. Perhaps Opposition Members would like to put it on the record of today's debate that they were wrong to support the introduction of the escalator under the previous Government. That would at least free them of the charge of logical inconsistency, if not the outright contradiction that has characterised the speeches of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, whose argument appears to be that the road fuel duty escalator was right under the Tories, but is wrong under Labour.
      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Cannot the hon. Gentleman understand the difference between the introduction of an escalator when British fuel is among the cheapest in Europe and the Labour Government'
      208
      saction of continuing with an escalator at a higher rate at a time when our fuel is the most expensive in Europe? Can the hon. Gentleman distinguish between the two?
      Mr. Casale: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification—of course I understand the difference. However, we have not heard any evidence to support the argument that now is the time to abandon the fuel duty escalator; instead, we have heard arguments for abandoning the escalator that would have been equally valid if they had been used to oppose its introduction in the first place.
      Mr. McNulty: For the second time today—we heard it from the shadow Chancellor—we are hearing the myth that British fuel prices were low when the escalator was introduced. Figures from the Library for the third quarter of 1993 show clearly that Italy was the only country in the European Union where diesel prices were higher than those in Britain. By any reckoning, that means that the price of diesel in a significant number of countries was lower than ours, so the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) should either withdraw his comment or apologise to the Committee for misleading it.
      Mr. Casale: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will continue to disagree on many issues, but I hope that we can agree on the facts. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
      Precisely because the Government are building on a policy introduced by the previous Administration, I had hoped that the debate would focus more on the facts, the arguments and the issues at stake in the interests of preserving a cross-party consensus, rather than degenerating into party political—and occasionally opportunistic—rhetoric. The fact is that the fuel duty did rise significantly under the Conservative Government, as it has risen under Labour, in both cases at more than the rate of inflation. Under the previous Administration, the total rise was considerably greater than it has been under Labour.
      Mr. Woodward: Would the hon. Gentleman care to speculate on the consequences for the haulage industry of the fact that, while excise duty on diesel fuel is about 20p per litre in Germany and between 20p and 25p per litre in France, it is now 51p per litre in the United Kingdom and is to rise to 60p per litre in the next year or two? What does the hon. Gentleman believe that the effect of that will be on that industry in the United Kingdom? Will it be good for the industry, or bad?
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Casale: If the hon. Gentleman is so convinced that rising fuel prices will have a devastating effect on the competitiveness of the road haulage industry, why did the Conservative Government introduce the road fuel escalator in the first place? In an earlier intervention, the hon. Gentleman invited us to forget history—one can understand why he wants us to do that—but let us suspend our knowledge of history for a moment and examine the question from first principles.
      The hon. Gentleman will know that the price of fuel is not the only consideration when it comes to the competitiveness of this industry. We must take into

      209
      account other cost factors. The hon. Gentleman will know also that the British road haulage industry is competitive—in fact, there is overcapacity in that sector. There is great variation in performance and in the types of fuel used in the industry. This measure is designed to address those aspects, too. We are of course sensitive to the overall competitiveness issue—the road haulage industry is a valued and important industry—but, in assessing competitiveness, we must take account of all costs, and not just the cost of fuel.
      I return to my basic point: if the Opposition are concerned about the impact of road fuel increases on competitiveness and they think that fuel is the overriding cost factor influencing competitiveness in the road haulage industry, why did they introduce the road fuel escalator in the first place? If, under the Conservative Government, the road fuel escalator and petrol price increases—
      Mr. Hayes rose—
      Mr. Casale: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will respond to the first intervention before I give way again. Did petrol prices influence competitiveness less under a Conservative Government than under a Labour Government? Opposition Members are displaying the same logical inconsistencies in approach all over again.
      I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) will allow me to make progress. The decision to pursue the fuel escalator has been conditioned not only by history and by policies inherited from the previous Government but by Britain's international obligations to reduce emissions in line with agreements undertaken by the previous Government at Rio and by this Government at Kyoto. The policy has also been conditioned by the need to reach a balanced view about reducing pollution while seeking to protect the interests of an important and valued British industry.
      It is true that I represent a London constituency and London, as no other city in Europe, knows the cost of road traffic pollution in terms of the quality of our environment, our urban landscape and, perhaps most importantly, in terms of our health and that of our children.
      This Friday, the Wimbledon Civic Forum's Transport Forum will hold a public meeting to discuss how we can reduce traffic congestion and pollution in my constituency. Many of my constituents will attend that meeting to demand a change in the quality of the air that they breathe, a change in the transport system that still privileges the private motorist and road haulier at the expense of those who use the public transport network, and a change in the behaviour of those who use damaging, and ultimately dangerous, types of fuel. My constituents will not be indifferent to the needs of Britain's hauliers—neither am I—but they will point out that Britain's hauliers have an interest in ensuring a better environment and improved public health, too.
      Sir Robert Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that they do not tackle those problems on the continent simply by altering the price of fuel? They decide where lorries should go within European cities. If the quality of the environment is better without them, lorries are directed to avoid those areas.
      Mr. Casale: I welcome that intervention. One positive outcome of this debate is the constructive remarks from
      210
      the other side about the value of drawing upon the experience of other European countries when framing a national transport policy. We all have an interest in ensuring a better quality environment and better road transport policies. We must reduce reliance on diesel fuels, which are most damaging to our environment. The voices for change must be heard.
      As in other parts of the Bill, the Government must adopt a balanced approach, taking account of as many interests as possible before deciding what to do. The previous Government recognised that fact when they introduced the road fuel escalator, and this Government recognise it as well.
      Mr. Hayes: I noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the need to achieve a "balanced" policy. The point is that that policy must be sensitive to the different needs and approaches of different areas. Fuel tax is a relatively blunt instrument, so we must develop and evolve policies that are sensitive to rural areas as well as to cities and towns. I have lived in both rural and urban areas, and 1 understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the city environment. However, his arguments ring pretty hollow in sparsely populated areas where there is a lot of clean air but a diminishing number of jobs due to the crisis in the haulage industry.
      Mr. Casale: The hon. Gentleman intervened on me, but he seemed to be posing a question to himself. If he believes that the road fuel escalator is a blunt instrument, is he prepared to say that the previous Government were wrong to introduce it? Does he rule it out for ever and a day? He has had plenty of opportunities to clarify his position in this debate, but he has not done so.
      Perhaps the balance between the different arguments and interests involved has shifted since the last election. But, if it has done so, surely the balance of the argument has moved in the direction of giving greater weight to people's concerns about their health and their environment, not less. Therefore, there is now even greater public awareness of the need for an integrated public transport policy, in which rail can partially replace road as a means of haulage transport, and of the need to discourage the use of inefficient and damaging fuels.
      My main point, however, is that the fuel escalator, combined with other measures, is the right way forward. It was the right way forward when the Conservative Government introduced it, and it is the right way forward now, as this Government pursue the same policies for the same reasons with the same objectives and obligations in mind. Clause 2 should stand part of a Finance Bill that seeks to recognise the demands of a growing economy, a fair society and a sustainable environment in the interests of us all. I urge hon. Members to support clause 2.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am glad to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Butterfill. We have heard many facile speeches from the Government Benches this evening. Labour Members have referred to what has happened in the past, but my constituents are wondering what will happen to their businesses today as a result of the road fuel escalator.
      Mr. Swayne: Does my hon. Friend agree that the British electorate dispensed with the past on 1 May 1997?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I agree totally with my hon. Friend. Although he makes a jocular point, it has a serious edge.
      The Government should be examining the facts of the case. The economic circumstances are different every year and in every Budget. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) made it perfectly clear that the economic circumstances in this Budget did not warrant such a huge increase in duty.
      Mr. Derek Twigg rose—
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I will develop my theme and then give way happily to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mrs. Gorman: The hon. hon. Gentleman had loads of time in which to speak and many other hon. Members are waiting to contribute.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I would be grateful if my hon. Friend will allow me to develop this point.
      The economic circumstances are such that we have by far the highest priced diesel in the European Community. The current price is some 68p per litre, or £3.9p per gallon. The Budget introduced a staggering increase of 28p per gallon, which brings the total rate of taxation to £2.28 per gallon. That amounts to a rate of duty of 84 per cent. in this country compared with Belgium, which has a rate of 66 per cent. Let us look at our major world rivals, because that theme has not been developed in this debate. Siren voices from the Liberal Democrat Benches want the whole of Europe to increase road fuel duties. However, if the whole of Europe becomes less competitive with the rest of the world, there will be less and less trade in the European Union and more and more trade in the rest of the world, and unemployment in Europe will go up and up.
      Mr. Derek Twigg: The hon. Gentleman made a distinction between what is right today and what was right yesterday, and said that he did not think that it is now right to have the fuel escalator. Will he confirm that he would never again vote for the introduction of a fuel escalator or an increase to it?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not been listening to my speech. If he had, he would have heard me say that one should consider the rate of fuel duty in the light of the economic circumstances of the time. I cannot tell him what will be the economic circumstances after the Government have had a go at our economy. The economy may well be considerably worse off than it is now and, under those circumstances, we would probably be unable to increase the fuel duty as much as it would be prudent to do at the present time.
      Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman seems to oppose the idea that other European countries should increase their petrol taxes. Why does he think that? Has he not met road hauliers who argue—they have put this argument to me—that all they that seek is a
      212
      level playing field with European competitors, and they would like other European countries to put up their petrol taxes?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: That argument is totally fallacious. We should be encouraging our European partners to put taxes down, not up, because we would then gain a greater share of world trade, and the number of unemployed people in Europe—18.5 million—would start to go down. Unless we consider those 18.5 million people, their lives will be made a misery and, if we are not careful, so will those of many more people who will also be unemployed as a result of higher taxation.
      The Government have increased the road fuel escalator by 6 per cent. but that is not the only increase. There is VAT on top of that, so the increase is 6.2 per cent., and if that is compounded over 10 years, the rate of duty on a gallon of diesel will double over 10 years. The Government have a duty to tell the haulage industry when they will end that ridiculously high real increase in diesel duty.
      Much has been made of history. Almost all contributions by Labour Members have been set in the context of how the road fuel escalator operated when we were in power. However, I recall that, when the whisky industry was subject to similar duties, we froze the escalator because the industry was in difficulty. I should have thought that the road haulage industry was facing similar difficulties, so the rate of increase should be reviewed, and I look to the Government to do so.
      We can contrast the fuel duty escalator to the tobacco escalator. One of the Government's first moves was to increase the tobacco escalator from 3 to 5 per cent. The Government have a record of increasing customs duties. The effect of the fuel increase in the road haulage industry alone will push up the retail prices index by 0.25 per cent. When all the other increases are taken into account, the RPI will no doubt increase by considerably more.
      The Chief Secretary made great play of the overall costs to hauliers, but the fuel element of most hauliers' business is about a third of their total costs. That means that all the other costs are much lower by comparison. When one considers that the price of a litre of diesel in the United Kingdom is 68p, compared with 39p in Belgium and, perhaps significantly, 44p in Ireland, one begins to realise how uncompetitive British haulage is compared to some of our competitors.
      If Ministers, who are laughing, doubt the truth of what I am saying, they should consider the example given by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). He pointed out that one of this country's largest haulage companies, Eddie Stobart, is thinking of flagging out some 100 lorries to Luxembourg or Ireland. Those companies know their business backwards; they are voting with their feet as an indictment of the Government's Budget measure.
      As I said, diesel costs 44p a litre in Ireland and, contrary to what is constantly asserted by those on the Treasury Bench, Ireland has lower corporation tax than Britain. Its large corporation tax rate is 28 per cent. and the small corporation tax rate is 25 per cent. In addition, Ireland has lower labour costs; they are 13 per cent. of total costs. That makes me wonder whether many more hauliers will flag out their lorries to Ireland and other EU countries with lower tax rates.

      213
      7.45 pm
      Flagging out will undoubtedly result in a haemorrhaging of customs duties, so the revenue total in the Red Book will not be as large as the Government have claimed, but a much sadder result is that jobs will be lost to the continent. Even more importantly, the environmental benefits—which I shall address in detail in a moment—will not be as great as has been claimed because continental lorries coming into this country are not as well-regulated and serviced as British lorries and their emissions are likely to be worse than those of better-serviced British lorries.
      Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman referred to the fuel price differentials between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. Is he aware that £100 sterling will purchase 139 litres of diesel in Northern Ireland and 229 litres of diesel in the Irish Republic and, as a result, haulage companies in Northern Ireland are now registering their business in the Irish Republic?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown>: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which precisely proves my point. I have no doubt that, when the haulage industry considers the Budget measures, more hauliers will transfer their operations to southern Ireland because, for many, that is much easier than having to transfer business to the continent. It is crazy that we are losing jobs and duties to other countries when those jobs should be based here and we should have a competitive haulage industry. When goods need to be moved here, that should be done by domestically based firms.
      I shall deal now with the environmental improvements claimed by the Government. The Chief Secretary said in his opening speech that 12 million tonnes of carbon would be saved each year. I have been reading the Library brief, which claims that, between 1996 and 2002, the total saving will be between 2 million and 5 million tonnes of carbon, which is considerably less than the Chief Secretary's claim. I hope that, when the Economic Secretary replies to the debate, she will be able to clarify that serious difference of opinion.
      Nobody has mentioned alternative forms of fuel, but they are covered by clause 2, which is the subject of this stand part debate, so I shall now refer to liquid petroleum gas. There is no doubt that liquid petroleum gas has considerable environmental advantages over petrol and diesel. Companies in that industry include MarketLine International, which says in its brief that, if we want to foster the market in liquid petroleum gas, the fiscal framework must be guaranteed for at least five years so that companies have the stability and encouragement to make the necessary investment to change their fleets from using diesel to running on liquid petroleum gas. I ask the Government to play a genuine part in improving the environment by making that five-year commitment to the fiscal regime, so that hauliers are encouraged to make that change.
      There are considerable environmental gains to be made from using liquid petroleum gas. One has only to consider the carcinogenic compounds benzine and 1,3 butadiene. There is no safe level for those chemicals. I ask the Government to reconsider the claimed benefits of diesel over petrol because the amount of carcinogenic oleogens
      214
      produced by diesel is considerably less than that produced by petrol. Liquid petroleum gas produces about half the amount of oleogens produced by diesel, but about one thirteenth of the amount produced by petrol. The proportions of those dangerous chemicals—which are probably the most dangerous emissions from vehicles because they are carcinogenic—are much higher in petrol than in diesel.
      There are other environmental gains to be had from LPG as opposed to petrol or diesel. They include reductions in CO2 in lead, in oxides of nitrogen, in particulates—PM10 in sulphur dioxide and in carbon monoxide. There is obviously a considerable environmental gain in switching to LPG. The Government have not created a sufficient differential in the Budget, and they have not created enough long-term stability to encourage haulage firms to transfer to liquid petroleum gas.
      In summary, I believe that the Government are wrong to have increased the fuel escalator to the extent that they have. Jobs will be lost, the country will lose revenue and the environmental gains will not be as great as claimed. I urge the Government to consider the matter carefully because, if they go on compounding 6 per cent. plus VAT on 6 per cent. plus VAT, I doubt that we shall have much of a haulage industry left by the time that they leave office at the next election.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I make no apology for the fact that it has been necessary for my colleagues and I to use every opportunity to draw attention to the plight of the road haulage industry in Northern Ireland, and of the families who have been operating petrol and diesel retailing outlets.
      In Northern Ireland, there is hardly any alternative to road haulage for the transport of raw materials shipped into the Province to our industry; for the movement of manufactured goods back to the ports of Belfast, Larne, Warrenpoint and Londonderry for export; and for conveying exports to the Irish Republic. I believe that we have only one regular freight train—from Belfast to Dublin and some of the southern ports.
      Therefore, the transport of goods by rail does not provide a realistic option; indeed, most parts of Northern Ireland have no rail infrastructure. The situation is similar to that which prevails in many rural areas of England, Scotland and Wales. People are obliged to provide their own means of transport, and rely on it totally.
      Road haulage in Northern Ireland is the life-blood of our industry and our agriculture. The roads are the veins and arterial routes, along which we must move raw materials and manufactured goods. We need a competitive road haulage industry—an industry that helps us in our economic development, so that we can become less dependent on support from United Kingdom taxpayers.
      We understand Her Majesty's Government's objectives of protecting the health of the nation throughout the United Kingdom and protecting our environment, but there must be greater balance in taxation than there has been in road fuel and vehicle excise duty, which is causing severe economic damage to legitimate businesses and having painful effects on families. Plainly, many filling stations in Northern Ireland within 10 or 15 miles of the border have had to be closed.

      215
      The additional costs to our industry, and for everything that we buy, arising from increased vehicle excise duty and increased fuel duty, represent a double whammy. We are all paying additional taxation. Rural dwellers are doubly disadvantaged.
      Throughout the debate, the Conservatives have made much play of the effect of the fuel duty escalator. Although that is obviously an effective and useful means of drawing down tax, they must accept some responsibility for the position that we are in. But it is even more important for the present Government to stop blaming the Conservatives when they, by the fuel duty escalator, are adding insult to injury and increasing everyone's pain by introducing punitive increases in fuel duty.
      On 11 November 1998, in her reply to an Adjournment debate on the costs of the haulage industry, the Economic Secretary remarked:
      "looking at business as a whole, transport is a relatively small part of total business costs."—[Official Report, 11 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 347.]
      That may be a backhanded compliment to the efficiency of our road haulage industry, but I felt that it was dismissive of the serious problems faced by the business of road haulage—problems that remain to be satisfactorily addressed.
      The Freight Transport Association, which represents 12,000 members in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of whom about 300 are in Northern Ireland, says that
      "fuel costs are a substantial element in overall vehicle operating costs … The additional 6p per litre imposed in the recent Budget will make matters worse for the road transport industry with operators in Northern Ireland finding it virtually impossible to compete with firms in the Republic. It will also encourage more smuggling and therefore increase the unfair competition by those using illegal fuel to undercut haulage rates. The Petrol Retailers Association"
      and the Freight Transport Association believe that more and sufficient resources must be made available to
      "Customs and Excise to enable effective enforcement action to be taken to eliminate smuggling."
      As Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom with a land frontier with another European Union state, the increases in fuel duty have made smuggling extremely profitable and provided a real incentive to smuggling. There are huge profits to be made; that gravely concerns us in Northern Ireland. The increase in the 40-tonne, five-axle vehicle tax to £5,750 also means that it costs £4,000 less to tax a vehicle in the Irish Republic. That means that hauliers—legitimate business men in Northern Ireland—have no alternative, if they are to survive, but to flag out.
      Operators in south-east England may be only threatening to move to the continent. It is a fact that an operator in Northern Ireland need move only 40 or 50 miles to set up an operating haulage business, legitimately, across the border in the Irish Republic to benefit from flagging out in the Republic. Huge savings will be made on every vehicle. The operator will benefit from the extremely cheap—in our terms—fuel, and the value of sterling over the punt gives an advantage of nearly 20 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) pointed out.
      216
      8 pm
      The ingenuity of the smugglers in the border areas between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic knows no bounds. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has referred to the fitting out of a cattle or livestock lorry with a huge tank. The ventilator shafts were stuffed with sheep fleeces, and a few bleating sheep were put in the front of the lorry. Each time it came to a checkpoint, the sheep attracted the sympathy of the police man or the Customs and Excise man and, time and again, it was waved on.
      Tractor, car and Land Rover trailers are fitted out with tanks, and a load of peat is spread over the top to give the impression that peat is being transported innocently from the bogs for domestic use. So it goes on. Grain lorries capable of carrying 40 tonnes are fitted out with huge tanks and carefully disguised. They then fill up and move on.
      Oil storage appears to be a growing and thriving industry in the border areas, especially in Northern Ireland. There are more oil storage tanks in some agricultural areas than there are cattle, sheep or pig units, and cowboy hauliers can make even greater profits by using red diesel, on which no duty is paid. They have an even greater incentive, because there are so few customs officials on the ground. We reckon that hundreds of millions of pounds must be being lost annually to our Exchequer, which is very painful—that money should have been providing us with schools and colleges and would have helped to take the pain out of present policies, which are almost bankrupting every school under local management.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has the hon. Gentleman calculated the loss to the Exchequer when a big lorry fills up in the south of Ireland? Big lorries can take 400 litres, which represents a saving of £240 on the increased costs in the Budget. That would more than pay the cost of ferrying such a lorry to the mainland.
      Mr. Beggs: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. What he says is quite true, but think how easy it is in Northern Ireland to take a trip across the border, which is only 40 miles away. The trip takes only five gallons of fuel and drivers save hundreds of pounds by tanking up. That is being done legitimately by many operators. I am amazed that the Government have given us no indication that research is being carried out into how many million gallons of fuel have been delivered into Northern Ireland over the past few years and how those supplies have been replaced surreptitiously by supplies coming in from the Irish Republic.
      Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend may not be aware that I have recently questioned the Treasury on this matter. I am told that it does not know how much it is losing—it does not seem to be able to work it out—but I note that one of its replies said that deliveries dropped by 30 million litres of petrol and 40 million litres of diesel in one three-month period between 1996 and the end of last year.
      Mr. Beggs: That is indicative of the scale of loss to our Exchequer. It also reflects the damage being done to legitimate businesses in Northern Ireland.

      217
      I welcome the recently reported crackdown by Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland, but it seems strange to some of us that it is possible for it to report a successful knock operation and show us the impounded vehicles only when the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee visits Belfast for an appointment with Customs and Excise. It is quite remarkable—
      Mr. Hayes: Where do they fill up the vans?
      Mr. Beggs: Vans of all kinds are filled up, and even bread vans are running out of the Irish Republic in disguise. Every disguise is used.
      It is surprising that a knock operation can be arranged to impress the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee when it visits Belfast—those matters were debated last week—and it was also surprising to read the Belfast Telegraph on 21 April. It said:
      "Customs officers have cracked down on illegal fuel by seizing nearly 30 vehicles over the past week."
      That was good timing. We welcome those seizures, but they come a bit late, considering how many legitimate petrol and diesel retailers have been put out of business. Any operator who is in tow with smugglers can set up a portakabin as an outlet retailing cut-price fuel and move on to another site the next day, repeating the cycle. Punitive action must be taken against those involved in illegal practices.
      There are also losses to the Irish Republic's economy, because many operators get a double benefit; they receive thousands of pounds for delivering diesel or petrol to Northern Ireland, and they return with loads of heating oil, which is at a premium in the Republic. They have nothing to learn, and I hope and trust that the Government recognise the seriousness of the threat to our legitimate haulage industry and the damage that recent Budget tax increases have caused.
      I also hope that the setting up of the haulage forum will not be typical of the Government. People are becoming sceptical, because the Government are interested in soundbites and catchy headlines. They continue to take advantage of promises of additional expenditure, getting three or four times the mileage from the same money, although it is still not spent. I hope that they are sincere in setting up the haulage forum and that the consultation will be meaningful. If it is to be meaningful, positive action has to be taken to protect our haulage and freight industry within the United Kingdom.
      Bearing in mind the specific and serious problems within Northern Ireland, I appeal to the Government to look at those special circumstances and to take specific measures to protect legitimate haulage businesses and petrol retailers in Northern Ireland. The Government must prevent those with paramilitary links from gaining huge profits, which are so accessible to them, and transferring them for use in future terrorism. The situation is serious and requires urgent attention. I appeal to the Government to show us evidence that these real problems are being addressed.
      Mr. McNulty: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), who will not mind me saying that he could never be accused of talking in sound bites. I am sure that he was not suggesting that smuggling between Northern Ireland and the Republic is new, or that
      218
      many of the trickeries that people get up to in smuggling across that border have occurred only since 1 May 1997. Not long ago, the traffic was in the opposite direction: ordinary car users as well as those in the haulage industry would pour out of the Republic to fill up in the north and then go back again.
      I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the lack of infrastructure within both the north and the Republic. Apart from one railway up the east coast, there is not much at all. I have strong connections with the county of Donegal. After the introduction of the punt, I spent 10 or 15 years deciding whether to fill up in Monaghan Town or Aughnacloy, or to stop at Strabane and then go over the bridge and fill up at Lifford, or the other way round. Thus the problem is not new. It would be a misrepresentation of the hon. Gentleman's comments if anyone were to suggest that the difficulties in Northern Ireland occurred because of this Budget or previous Budgets. I know that that is not what he was saying.
      I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, if productive work is to be done at the road haulage forum, there might be scope for looking at the specific concerns of Northern Ireland. Because of the nature of its geography and infrastructure, those concerns are very real and different. However, adjusting the level of fuel duties in the Finance Bill will not solve the problem of smuggling, whichever way it is going across the Irish border. The Irish haulage industry did not collapse when things were considerably cheaper in the north.
      Mr. Beggs: The seriousness of the situation in Northern Ireland is such that the Exchequer could be losing as much as £400 million. It has been suggested that the legitimate industry could have rebates for the fuel used, which would then do away with the huge differential. Never in the history of differentials in fuel rates between the north and the south have we had as big a gap as there is now.
      Mr. McNulty: I take that point. If I wanted to be facetious, I would say that that makes a strong argument for, if not the unification of Ireland, at least the unification of tax rates and fuel rates within Ireland. I accept that there is a specific context, and if the road haulage forum looks specifically at Northern Ireland's concerns, that would not be overdue. I appreciate the candour with which the hon. Gentleman spoke—unlike most Opposition Members.
      Earlier in the debate, I got a facile little knock back from the shadow Chancellor, who told me that I had not been in Parliament long. I wanted to know why there was no mention of the road escalator in the Conservative motion last Wednesday—not weeks or months ago, but last Wednesday, when the Conservatives could have at least have flagged up their concern about the abolition or otherwise of the fuel escalator. Given that there was nothing in their motion, I thought that they would at least table an amendment to clause 2 tonight. We now know why nothing has been tabled: it is because we have heard almost as many positions on the fuel escalator as we have had Conservative speakers. They are not sure whether they want to get rid of the fuel escalator completely, get rid of it next year, freeze it this year, freeze it for ever, think about it or do nothing with it. None of them will commit themselves to saying what they will do by the

      219
      time the next election rolls around. They will go into that election committed to a fuel escalator. They do not have a clue.
      Mr. Paterson: What will the hon. Gentleman say to the hauliers who will be closed down and put on the dole by the fuel escalator? Will he explain to them that he voted for the fuel escalator tonight?
      8.15 pm
      Mr. McNulty: The very first thing that I shall say is, "Don't look to your friends in the Conservative party, because they put 5,000 people on the dole, and no one who has gone on the dole so far has done so because of this measure."
      We are told that it was all right for the previous Government to introduce a fuel escalator—I shall not go into history—because our fuel prices were the lowest in Europe. Figures from the Library, which I quoted in an earlier intervention, show that, short of Italy, of the 12 member states of the EU at the time, Britain was second. Ten other countries had lower fuel rates. [Interruption.] The right hon. Members for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and for Horsham (Mr. Maude) are not interested in the truth. Those are House of Commons Library figures. That is the second time that Conservative Members have challenged figures that come not from me, other hon. Members or vested interests, but from the Library. I thought that the Library's neutrality was recognised and that it was against the conventions of this place to challenge its figures.
      The little schoolboys opposite giggled when I suggested earlier that it does matter that for every £10 spent on fuel, we accept that £8.50 is tax. However, £7.70 of that £;8.50 is down to the previous Government. I say that with no malice; it is just a fact. Conservatives should remember that we are talking about the small differential between £;7.50 and £8.50.
      I go further and say that, since the introduction of the escalator—
      Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McNulty: Of course—it is always fun.
      Mr. Brady: Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that in 1979, the level of duty was zero?
      Mr. McNulty: I shall not bother letting the hon. Gentleman intervene again if that is the best that he can do. He has said nothing.
      Since the escalator was introduced, 26p on each litre is accounted for by what one might call the Tory escalator, and only 7p is accounted for by the last three Budgets. Conservative Members do not dwell on the fact that the Treasury has picked up on the Select Committee's suggestion and will review the entire use of this tax next year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] There is no "Ah" about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) said that, and there was simply no dissent.
      220
      Listen to this line very carefully: I should like to congratulate the previous Conservative Government on introducing the fuel escalator.
      Mr. Tim Collins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
      Mr. McNulty: On what? On congratulating the Conservative Government? Of course I will.
      Mr. Collins: If it was such a good idea, why did Labour Members oppose the fuel duty escalator? Why did they go around the country attacking the so-called 22 tax increases from the Tories, five of which were that?
      Mr. McNulty: I repeat: I should like to congratulate the previous Conservative Government on introducing that tax—not all 22 taxes and the handful that were not counted in that figure. That tax made sense. It also makes sense within the context of clause 2, not least for the environmental reasons suggested by hon. Members, but because the increases are an important part of our strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
      Let us listen to the complacency of Conservative Members: "We have done that. Tear up the Kyoto agreement. It no longer matters. Tick the little boxvdone." What a deep understanding that shows of the environmental impact of those emissions. One right hon. Member said that
      "transport must contribute to any strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions."
      Who can disagree with that? Certainly not the right hon. Member for Wells as those are his words.
      This issue is and must be about balance. That argument has been sadly lacking in this debate. Everyone accepts that it is about balance. Although it is about environmental concerns, it is also about keeping people in business and keeping freight running around the country, whether by road or by rail. It is also partly about revenue for the Exchequer, but as has been said,
      "I know that a car is often a necessity, but all motorists must think about the environmental consequences of what they do."—[Official Report, 23 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 103.]
      Who would disagree with that statement? It is as relevant now in 1999 as it was in 1995 when, again, the right hon. Member for Wells said it.
      We are lost in the mythology that, since 1 May 1997, everything in the rural economy has been destroyed and put asunder, which is absolute nonsense. We accept that some things are more expensive in rural areas, but others are more expensive in urban areas. Four years ago that did not matter at all, but now, in the Conservatives' feeble attempt at opposition, it does. They argued then that that was the interplay of the market; now, who knows what they argue?—it depends who one talks to.
      There are three key elements of Conservative Members' opposition. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, who explained them far more accurately than I last Wednesday. The same is true of clause 2. To sustain their opposition to clause 2 and, sadly—depending on whom one speaks to—their complete opposition to the road escalator, the Tories have had to bad mouth the haulage industry by calling it uncompetitive. In the round, it is not.

      221
      I was present last Wednesday and I have been here for much of tonight's debate, and apart from some hot air, no Conservative Member has suggested that the costs of British haulage companies compared with those of companies on the continent make British companies anything other than extremely competitive.
      Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman name one Conservative Member who has accused the road haulage industry of being uncompetitive? I remind him that the Minister of Transport in Wednesday's debate and the Chief Secretary today went on about the 30 per cent. empty loads run by the haulage industry and accused it of being uncompetitive. No Conservative Member has said anything about that.
      Mr. McNulty: That takes disingenuousness to a higher plane than I ever could. The underlying assumption of much of what Conservative Members have said today and of what they elaborated on last Wednesday is that—as one of them said, but I cannot remember which one—this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. They argue that the industry is hobbling along, and that the provisions outlined in clause 2 will mean death and destruction to the business of the haulage industry up and down the land. If that is not implying that the industry is not competitive and robust, I do not know what is. Every Conservative Member has suggested that in one form or other. They are completely wrong.
      Conservative Members also argue that all the difficulties ever laid at the door of the British road haulage industry began on 1 May 1997 or thereafter with the three Budgets that the Government have introduced, including this one. That is at best a gross over-simplification of the prevailing situation, and at worst extremely misleading.
      Mr. Tim Loughton rose—
      Mr. McNulty: Is the hon. Gentleman waving at me or does he wish to intervene?
      Mr. Loughton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McNulty: Yes, of course.
      Mr. Loughton: I hate to disrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, but he says that things have not changed since 1 May. Does he acknowledge that on 1 July 1998, with the ending of cabotage restrictions in the European Union, European lorry drivers were able to pick up British loads and take them to British destinations? That made the competitiveness argument that he is trying to espouse entirely fallacious.
      Mr. McNulty: With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman is being fallacious. He knows as well as I do that that had an insignificant and minimal effect on penetration into the British market. It would go beyond the scope of the debate to talk about Brit sign or Brit pop and the other matters that Conservative Members were discussing last week, but we could go into further detail and expose the hot air that Conservative Members produce. They have no response at all. Blaming Government policies is, at best, an over-simplification and, at worst, extremely disingenuous.
      222
      Others have waxed lyrical, so I shall not dwell on this point, but the third key pillar of the Conservatives' opposition to clause 2—they cannot be bothered to table an amendment, so they are not that bothered—is the "not me guy" approach that they have rehearsed at length. They argue that it is nothing to do with them, and that the world stopped on 1 May 1997. The £7.70 out of £8.50 tax for every £10 of fuel is nothing to do them: it was all invented on 1 May.
      The substance of the Conservatives' opposition is meaningless. They offer no alternative. No one would dispute that many industries go through cycles and have difficulties. We accept that the road haulage industry has difficulties, which is why we have listened and have set up the forum. In a range of other areas, such as corporation tax and the freeze on road tax for 98 per cent. of lorries, which is unfortunately beyond the scope of the debate, we are tackling many of the industry's concerns.
      It is not enough to pooh-pooh environmental concerns, because they remain important. Clause 2 needs to be seen in the context of the Government's efforts to improve transport, the environment and the general corporate taxation regime. It is a matter of balance, but to say, as Conservative Members have said, that the road fuel escalator causes all the difficulties throughout the road haulage industry is absolute bunkum. To imply that freezing or getting rid of the escalator, as they do, would eradicate all the problems of the road haulage industry is hogwash.
      If the Tories are the best that the haulage industry can do for friends, it is in very real peril. Conservatives Members have shown, by tabling no amendment tonight and by offering no suggestions last week, but merely carping, that despite their weasel words, they care nothing at all for the haulage industry. By their actions tonight, they could not care less about the environment. They are simply exploiting the haulage industry in yet another sadly feeble, two-faced attempt at opposition, and they are pathetic.
      Mr. Ruffley: Listening to this debate, I am surprised that the Labour party continues to press the claim that what the Government are doing in this clause is not so very different from what the previous Conservative Administration did. I remind hon. Members that the Government introduced three important changes after 1 May 1997, which have considerably increased the road fuel tax burden in this country. Those changes were nowhere listed in what is laughingly referred to as the Labour party's 1997 manifesto. The Labour party gave no indication to the voters of the impending road fuel hikes that awaited them.
      The first change was the increase in the road fuel escalator to 6 per cent. I shall later address the fact that it was increased from 5 per cent., but it was a significant increase.
      The second increase was through the reduction of the differential between diesel duty increases and increases in ordinary fuel duty. It was about 5p per litre in 1994, and it was reduced in March 1998 by 1 p and to 2.5p in this Budget. That has led to a huge increase in diesel duty for road hauliers and other users of diesel.
      The third change from Conservative party policy was the timing of road fuel duty changes in the Budget, which has increased the tax take. That is a sleight of hand worthy

      223
      of a party that is a specialist in stealth taxation. The Government introduced a change in road fuel duty in their emergency Budget on 2 July 1997 to take effect that day, bringing it forward from the November increase that everyone had expected. They introduced an increase in the March 1998 Budget, bringing forward the changes that would otherwise have taken place in November 1998. Those timing changes have resulted in huge increases.
      Let us examine the nature of those increases. In a parliamentary answer on 19 March this year, the Economic Secretary told my hon. Friend the shadow Financial Secretary that the extra revenue taxation from road fuel duties on unleaded petrol since July 1997 was £350 million in 1997–98. On the hon. Lady's figures, in 2001–02 that will rise to a massive £1,000 million—£1 billion—extra, over and above the Conservative plans, as a result of the tax changes that the Government are making.
      8.30 pm
      We should also look at an answer that the hon. Lady gave on the same day, which reveals the extra revenue raised by the diesel tax changes. It is clear that, in the first three years of the current Parliament, an extra £0.9 billion will have been raised by the Government's changes relating to DERV; and it is possible to deduce that, over the last two years of the Parliament, an extra £1.9 billion will have been raised in diesel duty revenue.
      Any suggestion that the plans the present Government are introducing, and have introduced, are comparable to taxation introduced by the last Administration is exposed by the Government's own figures. It really will not do to suggest that there is little difference between us.
      Mr. Gardiner rose—
      Mr. Ruffley: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, with a due sense of anticipation and dread.
      Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman has made much of the assertion that timing changes were critical, as was the stealth with which those changes were introduced. Does he accept that, in their 1992 manifesto, the Conservatives campaigned against the introduction of an escalator, that they introduced it in March 1993, in their first Budget, and that in November of the same year—in another timing change—they increased the duty by not 1 per cent. but 2 per cent.? What the hon. Gentleman has accused us of doing in the first year of our Government is exactly what the Conservatives did in 1993. Has he dared to calculate the increase in the revenue taken by the Chancellor at that time?
      Mr. Ruffley: I deduce from what the hon. Gentleman has said that he accepts that this sleight of hand is a stealth tax, and that the timing change has increased road fuel revenue far above the level at which it would have been had Conservative plans and policy been maintained. The truth is that his Government have increased the tax. But there is another respect in which the Government's road fuel taxation policy differs from that of the last Conservative Administration—
      Mr. Collins: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. Is it in order for the usual parliamentary convention that an hon.
      224
      Member remains in the Chamber to hear the speech after his to be broken by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty)—especially when so many hon. Members have remained in the Chamber for so long in the hope of speaking?
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Who remains in the Chamber and who does not is not a matter for the Chair, although, as the hon. Gentleman says, it is a convention for hon. Members to stay.
      Mr. Ruffley: The Government's road fuel taxation policy differs from that of their predecessor in another respect. We had realistic ways of meeting the environmental objectives that were a treaty obligation of this country, Kyoto being the most notable example. It is entirely right for environmental targets to be met, but, as I say, our policy was founded on realistic, pragmatic taxation solutions.
      The Minister has specific objectives. She herself has said that the increased road fuel duty escalator introduced by her party will result in—I cite a parliamentary answer—an 8 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012. Indeed, the parliamentary answer is more specific: it states that, as a result of the road fuel duty escalator, on the assumption that it will continue until 2002, between 2 million and 5 million tonnes of carbon will be reduced per year.
      How can the Labour party be so specific? It is asking us to believe that a 6 per cent. real-terms increase in road fuel duty will hit the target: not 7 per cent., not 8 per cent., not 4 per cent., but 6 per cent. Let me say to the Minister, for whom I have some regard, that the basing of the objectives that she has mentioned in the House on such indicators as the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' 1997 national road traffic forecast is viewed with considerable scepticism by independent commentators and Conservative Members. If she is asking the public to believe that a 6 per cent. increase is the way in which to deliver those rather spurious targets, she must be living on another planet. It is on that basis that we can say that 6 per cent. is wrong, and that we will vote against it tonight.
      Mr. William Ross: I shall be happy if the Minister confirms this in her winding-up speech, but it appears to me from what the hon. Gentleman has said that the savings would arise if all the fuel was burned in British lorries. Not all that many trucks are made in the United Kingdom. Surely the fuel will be burnt at the same rate, regardless of who is carrying it, but it will not be carried in British-owned lorries any more; it will be carried by those who are buying the cheapest fuel.
      Mr. Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I trust that the Minister will address it when she winds up the debate.
      I believe that the assumption that only a 6 per cent. increase will hit the environmental objectives is bogus; but the problem gets worse. In its "green Budget" report in January, the Institute for Fiscal Studies—a distinguished independent body, as we all know—said that there was an inherent contradiction in the Government's excise duty policy. On the one hand, they

      225
      see it as a revenue raiser; on the other, they want to affect behaviour. They want to cut down car use and emissions; they want to persuade people to use less petrol and other fuel. Both cannot be right, opines the IFS.
      Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Ruffley: I will—again, with a due sense of dread.
      Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does he recall the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), as Chancellor, saying at the Dispatch Box that the introduction of the escalator at 5 per cent. was intended both to raise revenue and to affect behaviour?
      Mr. Ruffley: I wish that I had not bothered to give way. I will press on, as others wish to speak.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) rightly said, consumption of petrol in rural areas will not be choked off by these tax hikes. For many of my constituents a car is not a luxury but a necessity. They are continuing to use their cars; it just means that they are worse off as a result of the tax hikes being imposed on them. We need only look at the revenue assumptions to which I referred earlier, and at the Red Book, to see how the revenue take is increasing. I do not believe for a minute that behaviour will be affected significantly; certainly those in rural areas will continue to use road fuel, and they will pay a high price for doing so.
      Mr. Drew rose—
      Mr. Ruffley: I will not give way, as time is short.
      Let me, unashamedly, say something about my own rural constituency of Bury St. Edmunds. In a survey that I conducted shortly before this year's Budget, I wrote to 1,000 businesses, including many small businesses. Overwhelmingly, their main concern was the prospect of increases in road fuel duty. I also received a large mailbag about the regressive nature of the tax. Many of my constituents have low incomes, and many live in far-flung villages. They have to use cars to get to work. A typical letter was one that I received from a constituent in Rickinghall—one of those far-flung parts of my constituency. That constituent pointed out that the car was a necessity, and said that buses were no use at all. The inconvenient times involved, and the infrequent arrival of buses, had not been alleviated by the rural transport fund. My constituent said that the fund had done nothing for her, that her neighbours had had to pay higher fares in the last six months, that journeys took longer and that the service from Rickinghall to Bury St. Edmunds was more unreliable.
      Businesses suffer because of the tax increase. Only last week, the proprietor of Cracknell's garage, in Thurston—another village in my constituency—told me that his garage was now losing a huge amount of trade. As his once trusty customers are being so hard pressed by the road fuel tax hike, they have had to go to the big hyperstores in Bury St. Edmunds and Stowmarket. He was wondering whether he would be able to continue with his small business, in a small village.
      I have had representations from many hauliers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) observed, many hauliers are small family businesses—
      226
      the type of businesses that I thought the Government were keen to encourage. The Miles Company, in Great Ashfield, in my constituency, H. G. Moore and Son, in Walsham-le-Willows, Bacton Transport, in Stowmarket, and many other small hauliers have said that they think that they will be pushed to the wall by the increase in diesel tax.
      I have received from a notable haulier in my constituency—Mr. Hugh Wilson—a particularly worrying letter on the issues of competitiveness and foreign competition. He described the recent, worrying story of a well-known international trailer operator, operating out of Felixstowe, who used a local Suffolk haulier's tractor units to haul his trailers. After the Budget, the local haulier asked the international operator for an increase, from 92p to 95p per mile, which was designed to cover only the cost of the extra diesel and not of the vehicle excise duty increase.
      The international operator replied that he could not afford it. More importantly, he said that he was acting on the basis of a quotation that he received from a Dutch haulier, who offered to come over to Suffolk and to do the work in the United Kingdom for 90p per mile. It is an example in Suffolk—which is not so very far from the continent—of damaging foreign competition, and Mr. Wilson was surely right to draw attention to the threat, which the Government have done precious little to deal with in their remarks, either inside or outside the Chamber.
      I should like, finally, simply to underline the callous indifference shown particularly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effects that his road fuel duty hikes will have on rural areas. When he appeared before the Treasury Select Committee—of which I am privileged to be a member—I asked whether it was inconceivable that he might reduce the road fuel duty escalator below the plans that he announced. In his typical way, he said that he thought there had been a consensus on the road fuel duty escalator, and that it would be a pity if that consensus were broken.
      I do not know what planet the Chancellor lives on, but he has not been paying any heed to what the Confederation of British Industry said in its public remarks and in its evidence to the Select Committee. Kate Barker of the CBI has said that there must be "real concern" about the viability of the escalator continuing into the future.
      It would have been nice if the Government Benches had been filled with Labour Members representing rural constituencies—which they allegedly represent—so that they could tell the House what their constituents say about the escalator.
      Mr. Drew: Will the hon. Member give way?
      Mr. Ruffley: I shall not give way—[Interruption.] I should like to allow other hon. Members to speak.
      Today, those Labour Members with a well-earned reputation for joined-up sycophancy have merely re-established and reasserted their claim to that reputation. It is disgraceful that the Government Benches are so poorly populated with hon. Members addressing the issue of the escalator's effects. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is an honourable exception to that.

      227
      On road fuel duty increases, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has said, both inside and outside the House, that the "polluter pays". But that is wrong, because rural communities pay. I trust that rural communities will make the Government pay at the ballot box, and sooner than the Labour party thinks.
      8.45 pm
      Mrs. Gorman: I have been appalled at Labour Members' indifference to the plight of that group in our society whom they always prefer to champion—the working man. I never thought that I would live to hear such indifference coming from a Labour Government, whose entire thesis is that they exist to serve the interests of those whom they claim other parties neglect. I make an honourable exception of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who made a very good speech in support of his working people.
      The Government are endangering jobs. Yet, today, I saw the Government Chief Whip laughing at such a prospect, as if it were some sort of joke. The Government are threatening the care of our children, making it more difficult to get them to school and to pay school transport fares. The practical effects of increasing fuel duties are felt not only by large haulage companies, but—as has been pointed out time without end in this debate—by small firms and those whom they employ.
      Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Gorman: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has talked enough piffle for one day.
      I met a driver who works in the haulage business, and he explained how many people of relatively low skills find their occupation in those industries, which are extremely important to them—[Interruption.] He said that, when fuel duty is increased, the only thing that they can do to improve their wages is to work extra hours. When fuel costs rise—he was complaining about the specific increase in the Government's most recent Budget—proprietors try to keep competitive by lowering prices. Therefore, services are usually not cut, but wages are driven down. Ultimately, those who will suffer are the workers on the job. I do not think that Labour Members accrue any credit by laughing at those people's plight, which is the reality.
      Concerns have also been expressed about the plight of farmers, who are already having a rough time of it. My farmer—farmer Philpot, whom I should like to get into the record—came to see, and said that the problem is not, as has been pointed out, duty-free red DERV for his tractor, but the fact that he has to get his goods to market. He grows loads of potatoes, and needs to use his vehicle to get them to market. The potato market is highly competitive, and he has to compete with subsidised potato farmers in Holland who export to the United Kingdom.
      A great part of the frozen chip industry will go for the cheapest spud they can get, which means that growers like farmer Philpot are put in an impossible position. He sells goods almost below cost when he suffers such great duty increases. It is the reality of what is happening.
      I am surprised that no hon. Member has yet mentioned taxi drivers, who are usually quite vociferous. Taxi drivers, too, have been forced to press for increases in
      228
      their fares. Nevertheless, the Government say that they want to get everyone out of his car and to use more public facilities. The Government are—at their peril—indifferent to the plight of taxi drivers.
      The Government have been particularly indifferent, callous and insulting to the drivers who have come up to London to make their case, albeit on the streets. The party of public demonstrations is now callously indifferent—almost insulting—to those who are bringing their case to our attention.
      I am old enough to remember the days of the previous Labour Government, and the strikes that they precipitated because of their policies, which led to their absence from government for two decades. I warn them that by taking that attitude to the working man, they are in danger of alienating the very people whom they claim to represent.
      The issue of the environment has been raised time and again. These days it always seems to be prayed in aid by any Minister bereft of a good argument. Today we have heard yet again that the fuel duty escalator will help the environment. However, the fallacy of that argument has been pointed out, in that no one suggests that the goods will not go to market, simply that the petrol, or diesel, will be bought more cheaply, even if that means it being smuggled into the country.
      It is true that policies influence human behaviour. That is why most of our shipping is flagged out. The domestic costs and taxes on shipping were too high, and services were provided more cheaply abroad. The booze running and booze cruising that is now so widespread happens because people can avoid taxes by buying what they want abroad—as they will also do with fuel. That is inevitable, and the Labour party will not be able to stop it.
      Even children's health, as so often, has been dragged into the argument. The Chief Secretary said that children get asthma from the pollution caused by cars and lorries. I feel great sympathy for children with asthma, but there is much evidence that asthma is caused by dust mites in the home, which are both common and numerous, and whose faeces form an integral part of the domestic environment and the air in the home. They are as likely to be the cause of asthma as petrol fumes are.
      We keep hearing about millions of tonnes of carbon, but we are really talking about carbon dioxide, not the substance carbon, which is a black dust. The pollutants emitted by cars and lorries have now been reduced by more than 90 per cent., and most of the carbon dioxide produced in the environment does not come from vehicle exhausts, which account for only 20 per cent., if that. Most of it comes from the burning of fuels, especially fossil fuels used for heating.
      Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Gorman: Please do not keep interrupting me. I am trying to finish what I am saying so that other Members can speak.
      Younger people probably do not remember this, but I am old enough to remember real air pollution, which was caused by the combustion of coal in domestic fireplaces. The air today is in a state of pristine cleanliness in comparison with the air then. To suggest that we are not making progress is ridiculous, and it is untrue to say that the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by motor cars is highly significant.

      229
      There are fewer than 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Even if we reduced that proportion, a tiny reduction in the level of something that is already present in only minute quantities would be of infinitesimally small significance. Therefore the whole argument is fallacious.
      If the Government wish to improve the environment, they should concentrate on helping industries, especially the car industry, to remain profitable and to produce alternative engines that can use more environmentally friendly fuels. It has been brought to my attention by the Ford plant in my constituency that Government taxes are making it more and more difficult for the company to carry out such research.
      Ford tells me that the "conflicting requirements of policies" have been responsible for affecting the amount of research that it can do on making lighter engines, which would reduce fuel consumption, and on the combustion efficiency of fuels. The company points out that Government requirements, and the deflection of its profits into what turn out to be unfruitful areas of research, reduce the amount of investment that it can afford to make.
      The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) recently contributed to my local newspaper—a contribution that will please the hon. Member for Workington, because it reveals the fact that there is another honest Labour Member of Parliament. The hon. Member for Braintree reported that the Minister of Transport had said that 50-lorry fleet proprietors were in a better position than their continental competitors—as if most fleets in this country consisted of 50 lorries or more. Fifty lorries would constitute a very large fleet-—he Stobart type of operation, which has already been mentioned. Such considerations do not affect most of the small contractors who form the backbone of the industry.
      The Minister of Transport was also reported as having said that the people protesting in London were
      "'a trouble-making minority' for creating traffic chaos. He told them they would lose further ground if they held the capital to ransom".
      That was a veiled threat to people who are simply trying to protest about the fact that their jobs are being put at risk.
      The hon. Member for Braintree said:
      "Hauliers are concerned about future viability".
      So am I. The hon. Gentleman has shown us that there are Labour Members who understand the necessity of supporting the people who elected them. Perhaps the fact that his majority is only 1,400 might help him to be more sensitive to the needs of the hauliers.
      We never seem to learn that if tax is taken from one individual and given to another, there is no increase in revenue; revenue is simply shifted from one source to another. The people who lose cash when Peter is robbed to pay Paul are those whose livelihoods suffer.
      The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), despite being married to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's personal assistant, made the amazing suggestion that Conservative Members were complaining because the Government had spent more money on health and education. That is a ludicrous argument—as if the £1.6 billion increase that the fuel escalator represents were intended for that purpose.
      230
      My final quotation from my constituency comes from Mr. Mark Boon, who runs a firm with 20 employees and 14 coaches. He says that the tax will cost him £8,500 a year. He says:
      "These costs are endangering people's jobs. It wouldn't be so bad if we could see that extra money paying for improvements to our roads infrastructure, but that is never the case."
      The £32 billion that the Chancellor already obtains in fuel duties is not used to improve transport facilities—not a bit of it. The money is largely squandered on vote-catching, on job creation schemes and other nonsense, most of which does nothing to increase jobs. However, the tax changes in the Budget add up to an awful lot of jobs destroyed, and Labour Members could not care less.
      9 pm
      Kali Mountford: I was disappointed earlier that duties elsewhere meant that I could not be here all afternoon, but the contributions that I have heard show that I have not missed much. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) seemed to argue for hypothecation of all taxes in all circumstances. That is extraordinary: I do not remember any Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer ever arguing that all taxes must be hypothecated to particular purposes. An argument can be made for hypothecation, but not in this case.
      In light of the polluter-pays principle, however, we must recognise that the rise in incidence of asthma has been remarkable, especially in young children. To say that it is caused not by increased vehicle exhaust fumes but by dust mites is extraordinary, especially as dust mite-free mattresses are more commonly available than ever before. It is hard to believe that the hon. Member for Billericay should have cited that argument to the Committee, but she did and I felt bound to rebut it.
      Conservative Members seem to have forgotten that it was the previous Conservative Government who signed up to the Rio convention and who said that emissions were too important and too dangerous to the atmosphere to be ignored. At the time, I thought that that was admirable, but Conservative Members seem, quite cynically, to have changed their stance, merely for the sake of a debating point that makes them look different. They claim that there is no evidence to support the view that the proposal will reduce pollution. It is all most extraordinary.
      In the Opposition debate on haulage last week, I asked the shadow Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), why the previous Conservative Government introduced the fuel duty escalator in the first place. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would answer that later in his speech, but he did not do so. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was able to give me the answer to my question. He told me that, at the time, the previous Conservative Government said that the important thing was to reduce pollution.
      Mr. Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Conservative Government introduced the escalator in 1993 to amend behaviour and reduce the amount of road haulage journeys, they knew that people in the road haulage industry would be put out of work? The crocodile tears shed by Conservative Members over unemployment in an industry that they targeted are hard

      231
      to believe. At least we make no bones that we are trying to get people to change their behaviour and to move them off the roads and onto rail and other means of transport.
      Kali Mountford: My hon. Friend is right. The contributions of some Conservative Members have already been quoted to make that point. It is certainly true that the previous Conservative Government knew what they were doing with the introduction of the escalator. However, they believed it to be the right thing to do: they knew the consequences, and they expected there to be certain changes in people's behaviour. There may have been overcapacity in the industry—there may still be—but there was also an expectation that drivers would not carry on with the old technology that produced the pollution, but that they would switch to more fuel-efficient engines.
      Conservative Members have also made some nonsensical arguments about going abroad to buy petrol. I represent a rural constituency in the north. One of my best friends is a lorry driver, so I speak with some knowledge of the industry. My friend is not a member of the Labour party and does not lobby me regularly, but I see him every week. He would not dream of driving to France to buy fuel. That would be ridiculous, and a completely uneconomical way to behave. He has not once complained to me about the fuel escalator, and he has ample opportunity to do so if he wants. He understands what our policy is about. He appreciates that the policy is part of a lot of tax changes. Since I came into the Chamber, I have not heard Opposition Members refer to the massive reduction in corporation tax for small and large businesses.
      Mr. Brady rose—
      Kali Mountford: I hope that it is worth it.
      Mr. Brady: I merely meant to draw attention to the very intelligent remarks made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on that point. He pointed out the difference of scale between a major company losing £1 million a year because of the fuel escalator and gaining a few thousand pounds from corporation tax. Perhaps if the hon. Lady had been here for the whole debate, she would be able to make a more intelligent speech.
      Kali Mountford: Those remarks were very flattering to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), and, given their source. I consider myself flattered, too. The hon. Gentleman has never said anything so wonderful about a Labour Member before, but I prefer not to be in his company normally.
      It often happens that some people gain more than others, but the hon. Gentleman is talking about large businesses. For small businesses, the result is quite different. He is missing the point. Of course some will gain and others lose, but the overall effect will be a change in behaviour. No hon. Member should be against that because pollution is far too important. There has not previously been any dissent about the idea that the polluter should pay, and I am alarmed to hear it raised on this matter.
      232
      I represent a rural constituency, and I have heard some remarkable comments with which I cannot possibly associate myself. I have had exactly three letters complaining about the fuel escalator. Two came from hauliers who were obviously part of a concerted attempt to change Government policy. I do not denounce them for that; I would seek to protect my own interests if I were in their position, rather than considering the wider interests of the whole community.
      The other letter came from a lady who did not need to use her car, but did not like buses. She preferred her car and complained that the £50 million—and the additional £20 million—for rural buses would be of no benefit to her because she simply did not like to stand outside waiting for buses.
      Conservative Members spent some time saying that buses were inefficient, that they did not run when people wanted them to, that timetables were wrong and that buses were not convenient. They should come to my constituency where bids have been made to the rural transport fund and where considerable change in rural bus provision has already begun. Even before funds were made available, consultation and sensible discussion with the local bus company meant that timetables were making the company more profitable. That made it more likely that people would use rural buses that ran on time, at the times when people wanted them and which were reliable, efficient and comfortable.
      Mr. Loughton: Does the hon. Lady admit that one of the biggest losers from the added increase in diesel fuel will be community buses, which do not receive any fuel duty rebate and on which a Conservative private Member's Bill was talked out by her Front-Bench colleagues?
      Kali Mountford: Fortunately, my local council had the foresight to help community buses so much that the change has not affected their running. Indeed, more buses are available for schools than were before the general election. The hon. Gentleman's argument falls down there, and Conservative Members should use their negotiating skills to benefit their constituents instead of whingeing in the House. That would do far more good by doing something about improving bus services.
      When we came into office, competition between buses was causing a fiasco on the roads. No wonder people would not use buses. Our changes have begun to take effect, and more are on the way. There will be two more bids—successful I hope—to the rural transport fund from my constituency, and I expect even greater change. Those changes mean that people in rural constituencies can get to work when they need to. It is nonsense to say that services do not run when they should. When we came into office it was true that subsidised buses ran only on Sundays but I am glad to say that that has changed in my constituency. The changes in the fuel duty escalator and the improved bus services mean that such a service is available. The arguments of Conservative Members fall apart because we are changing behaviour, and that change is essential.
      We also need to change behaviour in respect of freight. A shift to rail would be a good thing but I do not think that Conservative Members want it. They were against rail services throughout their period of office and they

      233
      maintain that still. They wanted to privatise the rail service, which they said would improve competition and efficiency but it has signally failed to do so. Now we must do something about it.[Interruption.] They laugh because they do not like the arguments. However, the arguments are clear: the polluter should and must pay. They have not addressed that issue.
      Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Kali Mountford: If I must.
      Mr. Brady: I am grateful, because I took exception to the hon. Lady's remarks about our attitude to rail freight. As joint chairman of the all-party rail freight group, I have always strongly supported rail freight but she must recognise that it is not available everywhere or for all freight flows. Her attitude in trying to force all freight on to the railways is unrealistic.
      Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is misrepresenting what I said. I did not say that all freight should go by train but that there are ways to encourage rail freight. A road haulier challenged me one night in a pub, in a rather unfortunate state—
      Mr. Brady: You or him?
      Kali Mountford: It certainly was not me. Although it was my wedding anniversary that day, we had not started drinking then. That gentleman challenged me about rail freight and said, even before the present debate started, that we favoured rail over road. Once we started discussing how he could link to a proper transport system and create a service alongside rail, he became much more amenable. [Interruption.] Conservative Members have obviously had an enjoyable evening, probably more enjoyable than mine. They cannot make light of the measure because it is for a good purpose. The polluter must pay. We must reduce emissions into the environment, which is important for the health of children and elderly people. It is important to support rail services. If the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) holds the position that he mentioned, I am surprised that he does not support what I am saying.
      Conservative Members have not said how they would fill the hole that they would create in our finances. They have not said how they would pay for services that could not otherwise be financed. Throughout the debate last week and tonight, not one has explained how he would fill the hole. They have merely said, "Oh, it is only £1.6 billion." What would that pay for? The hon. Member for Billericay talked about hypothecation and asked what it would be spent on, but the particulars do not matter. Let us consider the range of things that £1.6 billion could go towards.
      Perhaps Conservative Members do not think that we should stick to our spending plans. Perhaps it is part of the Tory split. They have already said that they would continue our spending plans on health and education but they have not explained where they would find the money if they cancelled the fuel duty. They challenged us to reverse the decision but if they were in power—I bet that they wish that they were—I would bet my bottom dollar that they would continue with similar tax increases.
      234
      The reason for our decision is the same as that which made the Conservatives introduce the escalator in the first place: it was the right thing to do then. We supported the environment then because it was the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do now and Conservative Members ought to have the honour to support the measure.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Edward Davey: I took some pleasure in the speech of the hon. Member for Come Valley (Kali Mountford) because she brought us back to the reason why successive Governments have backed higher petrol duties, namely, the need to protect the environment. She mentioned the growing epidemic of asthma across the country. Many of our children are now affected by asthma. Policies such as the road fuel duty escalator are needed to ensure that we preserve our environment and tackle health problems.
      Most of the debate has been a Punch and Judy battle between Government Members and official Opposition Members. It was most typified by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who is unfortunately not in his place now. In 16 minutes, he hardly made any substantive points, and he then had the discourtesy to leave the Chamber. The problem with his speech was that he did not deal with the need for environmental taxes, such as the escalator or with the need to consider how we compensate those who are affected and hurt severely by them.
      Hon. Members from different parties have identified three groups who have been hit by successive rises in petrol duty—people who live in rural areas, road hauliers and the northern Irish economy. There is agreement that Northern Ireland is rather a special case with respect to the fuel escalator. We need to deal with the real problems for those three groups. We need to consider ways in which we can compensate them. We need to consider whether other environmental policies such as subsidised rural transport can be adopted so that we can meet our environmental goals without hitting those three groups. Perhaps we need to review the fuel escalator, the speed of change and the time scale.
      There are three theoretical options when it comes to compensation. We could choose different rates of duty for different people or different areas of the country. We could make special target payments to those who are affected by the duty. Or we could make offsetting reductions elsewhere in the tax system to make some hypothecated compensation.
      Let us take differential rates of petrol duty first. The road hauliers to whom I have spoken have talked about the fuel rebate idea that has been promoted in France. It is worth considering. I am not attracted to it for reasons of administrative cost. I think that it would be expensive to administer and it is open to huge abuse—
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: And fraud.
      Mr. Davey:—and fraud, as the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position.
      Mr. Bob Blizzard: If it is open to abuse and for administrative reasons we should rule it out, why is it worth considering?
      Mr. Davey: We could see whether it would work, but my instinctive reaction is that it would be costly

      235
      to administer. It is the Government's job to look at all options. If they can learn lessons from France on ways of keeping the costs down, of course we are open-minded about it, but my instinctive reaction is that it would be a costly way forward.
      Differential petrol pricing is a possibility, but only for remote rural areas. For the vast majority of the country, it would be difficult to implement. There may be a case for a different petrol duty in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government are at least considering that. It would deal with the particular problem that we have heard explained by various Northern Irish Members.
      Mr. Drew: There is already differential petrol pricing. The big oil companies offer differential rates to garages in different parts of rural areas, depending on whether they think that those garages are competing with garages in nearby cities.
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes a most important point. The differential pricing structure to which he refers often exacerbates the problems of those living in remote rural areas and validates the need to examine whether that option might offer some benefit to particular areas.
      The second compensation option is the proposal to make specially targeted payments to compensate those people who are directly affected. For those in rural areas, it would be incredibly complicated to specify the geographical areas that would receive those benefits. There would be high administrative costs. Although it would be theoretically possible to compensate individual households in rural communities, it would be extremely difficult in practice. One would create perverse incentives.
      The option could be considered for road hauliers. I think—at least, I hope—that the Government might be moving in that direction in respect of conversion costs for road haulage companies to help them to meet the cost of converting their fleets to more efficient and environmentally friendly fuels. There is a case to be made for one-off payments to help the industry to adjust. If the Economic Secretary could comment on that matter, it would be welcome.
      I am most attracted to the third option: the offsetting of reductions in other tax burdens, especially in vehicle excise duty. The Government have gone a little way down that road—a tiny way—but they need to go much further. We believe that if car usage is to be taxed more severely—as this Government and the previous Government have done—the cost of ownership should be reduced. That should appeal to the Government because vehicle excise duty is an extremely regressive tax—it is a poll tax on the ownership of vehicles. If they want a progressive tax change that is pro-environment, they should reduce vehicle excise duty. That will appeal to low-income car users and be of special benefit to them. It will also enable the Government to sell a package of pro-environment policies to the wider motorist lobby.
      Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman began his speech by pointing out that we had returned to the fundamental issue of health. He spoke about emissions and the way in which they particularly affected children's health
      236
      That was right, but I cannot understand why he believes that any increase in the costs of operating vehicles should be offset by a rebate elsewhere. That will not affect behaviour; it will not reduce the number of road freight journeys and, therefore, it will not affect the emissions that will be produced and their effect on our children's health.
      Mr. Davey: I do not want to give the hon. Gentleman a lesson in the difference between fixed and variable costs, but the Government propose—and the previous Conservative Government said—that if the marginal costs of journeys are increased, an incentive to change behaviour is created. However, a reduction in vehicle excise duty would not bring that about. There would be no change in behaviour because the duty is a fixed cost—it is a cost of ownership. If that cost was reduced, there would not be a massive change in the number of cars on the roads. That is a ludicrous suggestion—I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not mean that.
      Apart from the ways of compensating people for higher petrol duty that I have mentioned, we could consider alternative or complementary ways of meeting the same environmental objectives. The Government appear to be moving slowly down that road in respect of urban areas. The Greater London Authority Bill, which will reach Report stage next week, contains clauses covering charges for the use of cars in Greater London, a non-residential parking levy and road user charges. Those schemes have not been considered in detail. I think that the Government are trying to build up consensus on them before they deal with them in detail. None the less, those are permissive clauses that would enable a future mayor to introduce proposals for road user charges.
      Road user charges help to target the incentives to reduce the use of motor vehicles on those areas where people have genuine alternatives, for example, suburban trains, the underground and urban buses. It is sensible to recognise that, because urban problems of congestion and pollution are far greater, we should not pile on the motorist taxes that apply equally to rural and urban areas. Road user charges give the Government a way to meet their environmental objectives while protecting those who live in rural areas. They would help in Northern Ireland and they would help many road hauliers as they cart their freight up and down the country because they would not necessarily have to enter metropolitan areas other than to make the end delivery. Road user charges offer a serious way forward that would get the Government off the hook, protect the three groups that have been identified in the debate and maintain the revenue base of Her Majesty's Treasury.
      Mrs. Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davey: I am more than happy to do so.
      Mrs. Gorman: That is very sweet of the hon. Gentleman. I should like to direct his attention to the wonderful speech made earlier by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who pointed out that road charges simply force the driver on to other roads for which there are no charges, thereby moving congestion to another area.
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Lady refers to a point made by the hon. Member for Workington, but his analysis was

      237
      relevant only to the proposals on road user charging that were put forward by the Conservative Government in respect of motorway tolls. The road user charges proposed in the Greater London Authority Bill cover a larger area and would affect all roads, not only trunk roads or motorways.
      Mrs. Gorman: He should have been here.
      Mr. Davey: I was simply taking up the hon. Lady's analysis and account of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Workington. That argument applies only to large trunk roads and motorways, whereas, if the hon. Lady cares to read the Minister's speeches in the Standing Committee on the Greater London Authority Bill, she will see that the Government's proposals on road user charges would apply to an entire area and not to specific roads, so the problem she identifies would not occur.
      Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman was making a case in which road usage in urban areas was set against the problems of rural areas. Does he recognise that some people in rural areas moved out of urban areas because they could afford to and that they have changed the social environment in rural areas; and that within rural society is a poorer group of people who have become dependent on cars because of the demise of bus services and who buy clapped-out old bangers that put into the atmosphere dreadful emissions which we all have to breathe and which affect greenhouse gases, whether they are emitted in rural or urban areas? Is it not also necessary to improve the transport infrastructure so that we can get people who cannot really afford to run cars on to buses?
      Mr. Davey: I had hoped that I had made it clear that I agreed with the hon. Lady on that point.
      I was addressing the question whether there were alternative charging mechanisms or taxes available to the Government that would enable them to achieve their environmental objectives but would not require an ever-rising fuel escalator. Road user charges are one system that the Government should consider, as are vignettes, and I hope that the Minister will tell the Committee that they are actively considering those options.
      Another option to which the Government appear to be sympathetic is lower taxes on environmentally friendly fuels. I should like the Government to publish a strategy on how they intend to introduce environmentally friendly fuels over the next 10 years. It is important that the Government should direct that effort, because they need to give those who are developing those fuels a clear indication of the likely tax system over the next 10, 15 or 20 years. There are huge costs of introducing such fuels, such as those of developing supply networks throughout the country, and the Government have to give a signal as to which fuel they intend to give their backing. There are many potential fuels that the Government could support: we have heard about LPG, but there are other clean-fuel technologies, such as cell fuels, in development and it might be possible to use them in standard motorised vehicles within the next five to 10 years.
      In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats support the Government in trying to hit the environmental objectives that they signed up to in Kyoto, and we acknowledge that
      238
      higher fuel duties are part of that strategy—as the Conservatives used to concede. However, we believe that the Government have yet to advance a coherent set of policies to compensate people who cannot escape the higher duties and who are adversely affected by them—namely, those who live in rural areas and in Northern Ireland and the road haulage industry. For that reason, we cannot support the Government tonight.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. John Whittingdale: This has been a good debate, with several well-argued speeches from both sides of the Chamber. I begin on a conciliatory note. I warmly welcome the Government's decision to reduce the rate of duty on road fuel gas. The previous Conservative Government first cut the duty by 15 per cent. in 1995 and by a further 25 per cent. in 1996 in recognition of the fact that the use of liquefied petroleum gas and compressed natural gas reduces the level of almost all air pollutants. I am glad that this Government are continuing that policy by introducing a further cut in this Budget.
      There is still some way to go. This cut in duty will undoubtedly help to encourage people to switch, but a clear disincentive remains in the form of a lack of refuelling points. I was concerned to learn recently that British Gas intends to close eight outlets, including one at Bradwell in my constituency. Another inhibiting factor is uncertainty about the future. Consumers and fleet managers need assurances that the favourable differential will be maintained. I therefore hope that the Minister will respond to requests from the industry, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), that the Government commit themselves to maintaining a favourable regime for at least the next five years.
      I am afraid that there is much less agreement between us on the increase in petrol duty. Many hon. Members referred to the fact that the fuel duty escalator was introduced by the previous Government in 1993. It was justified at the time as being necessary to complete Britain's strategy to curb carbon dioxide emissions. Several hon. Members—including the Chief Secretary—quoted the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who said that criticising the tax plans while also supporting the international agreement would be
      "sailing dangerously near to hypocrisy."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 939.]
      It is worth noting that another integral part of the tax plans announced at that time was the imposition of value added tax on fuel. However, when it opposed that measure, the Labour party conveniently forgot my right hon. and learned Friend's warning about hypocrisy.
      When the escalator was introduced, petrol prices in the United Kingdom were generally lower than in the rest of Europe. It was certainly never intended to use the escalator indefinitely; yet, as many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, the Government have not only continued to use the escalator, but increased it. By pushing it up to 6 per cent. and introducing three increases in two years, they have added 12p in tax to the cost of a litre of petrol. As a result, we have the highest petrol prices in Europe, if not the world. I challenge the Minister to name any country where petrol prices are higher than those in the United Kingdom.

      239
      Labour Members' arguments that the increases are necessary if we are to meet our targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions do not hold water. Only about 20 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions are accounted for by the transport sector, compared with 30 per cent. by the energy sector. The Government's climate change document states that, under the previous Government, there was a significant shift away from more carbon-intensive fuels, such as coal and oil, towards lower or zero-emission fuels such as gas and nuclear energy; yet, under this Government, a moratorium has been imposed on the building of any more gas-fired power stations, and nuclear power generation has been rejected. Already, a number of applications to build cleaner, gas-fuelled power stations have been turned down and, with some nuclear stations approaching the end of their lives, the consequence of the Government's policy will be to increase emissions, far outweighing any reductions achieved by raising the price of petrol.
      The Government's policy is not the most effective way of cutting CO2emissions from the transport sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for South—West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) said, the greatest contributor to reducing emissions from cars has been the improvement in technology. In the past five years, toxic emissions from vehicles have fallen by a third. However, that is not because people are driving less; traffic on the roads continues to grow. Improvements in technology have steadily cut the level of emissions, with the prospect of a further 25 per cent. fall in emissions from new cars in the next 10 years.
      As several hon. Members have pointed out, particularly those who represent rural areas, such as my hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), there is no alternative to the car for many people in this country. As the National Farmers Union has said, people living and working in the countryside are doubly hit by tax rises. Not only is their own vehicle use affected, but they will have to pay the increased transport costs that will be imposed on consumer prices.
      Research for the Automobile Association has demonstrated that increases in fuel tax impact disproportionately on households that rely on cars for their essential journeys, especially rural and suburban households with limited access to public transport services. Women, the disabled and those in receipt of state pensions and other benefits are particularly badly hit.
      In 1995, in the debate on the fuel duty increases, the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), now the Paymaster General—I am delighted to see her in her place—said:
      "People living in rural areas will be badly affected. They will find it difficult to understand why they must pay for the Government's taxes while receiving little in return in public transport. Pitching … the tax rise as an environmental measure is cynical".—[ Official Report, 23 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 99.]
      Does that remain her view?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend also take into account the fact that people in rural constituencies such as mine are further affected because not only is an 85 per cent. duty imposed on their petrol and diesel, but the
      240
      amount of the local government revenue support grant settlement that is spent on roads is decreasing each year? The standard of roads in the shire county of Gloucestershire, for example, is getting worse year by year.
      Mr. Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I say that from experience, because my county of Essex has had much the same experience under this Government.
      Most motorists have no choice but to pay the tax increase. However, as the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) pointed out, in Northern Ireland it is comparatively simple to cross the border to fill up with fuel. In the Republic of Ireland, petrol costs about 50p a litre, and that has led not only to cross-border shopping, but to smuggling on a huge scale. That problem has developed only in the past two years, with all major fuel suppliers reporting a significant drop in sales—in some instances, up to 40 per cent.—since the 1997 Budget, and as many as half of Northern Ireland's filling stations are now believed to be selling smuggled fuel.
      The lowest estimates put the loss of revenue at over £100 million a year, and there is little doubt that the IRA is heavily involved in that trade. However, the Government's response, in a letter from the Financial Secretary's office, was that, although £100 million is a great deal of money, it needs to be viewed in the context of a total yield from oils of about £20 billion. That problem will be made worse by these increases, and the Government's complacency on the matter is simply not good enough.
      The increase in fuel duty of more than 7 per cent. is bad enough. However, the clause also increases the duty on fuel oil, not by 7 per cent., but by nearly 22 per cent. Although that will add only 0.5p in tax to the cost of a litre, for some businesses the impact of that increase will be enormous.
      I recently received a letter from Dengie Crops Ltd. in my constituency, which is owned by a group of local farmers. They point out that one part of their business uses almost 4 million litres of medium fuel oil a year as a prime energy source to process crops. The increase in duty will increase their costs by almost £20,000 a year, and they say that
      "there is a limit to the amount of additional costs that companies will bear".
      I ask the Economic Secretary to say tonight how she can possibly justify an increase of 22 per cent., and how she expects business to absorb a cost increase on such a scale.
      Much has been said about the impact on the haulage industry of the increase in the cost of diesel, but it is not just hauliers who are faced with a huge increase. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) said, taxi drivers are also up in arms. In the £10 star letter in the latest issue of Taxi Globe, a taxi driver in Sidcup writes:
      "Maybe one of our overpaid Ministers could tell us why our diesel is taxed so much higher than anywhere else in Europe. When I voted for this Labour Government I was certain that I was doing the right thing. Now I know t made a mistake. They are worse than the Tories ever were, with no care at all for the working classes".
      Mr. Leslie: So that we may judge the hon. Gentleman's commitment on this matter, will he now take the

      241
      opportunity to give a commitment to oppose any fuel duty increase in the next financial year as well as this financial year?
      Mr. Whittingdale: We have already made it clear that we oppose the continuation of a road fuel escalator, and that we shall vote against these increases tonight.
      In November 1998, in an Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) drew attention to the huge damage that the level of diesel duty was doing to the haulage industry. He reported at that time that Ministers had refused to meet a delegation from the industry. A few weeks later, I attended a rally at Westminster of 2,000 truck drivers, who had come to London to try to persuade the Government of their case. Instead of listening to them, the Government raised the duty on diesel, not by 6 or 7 per cent., but by 12 per cent. What is more, the Chancellor did not even mention it in the Budget speech, and the full scale of the increase became clear only when we looked at the Red Book. It was a kick in the teeth to the haulage industry, whose anger is entirely justified.
      A large number of Members who have spoken have given examples of how the increase will affect firms in their constituencies. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) told us that the Labour candidate for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale has called it a poll tax on wheels. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made an excellent speech, based on considerable knowledge of the industry and its concerns. I really hope that, even if the Economic Secretary is not prepared to listen to us, she will listen to her hon. Friend.
      By contrast, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, appeared to support the escalator; but perhaps that is less surprising, given that his Chief Whip, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), told us in the Western Morning News two weeks ago that
      "There is a case for road freight to be taxed more heavily."
      The Chief Secretary, in opening the debate, showed breathtaking complacency. He told us that there was overcapacity in the industry, that too many firms are inefficient and that, in any case, the Budget is helping the haulage industry. No wonder the hauliers are so angry.
      I finish by quoting from a letter that I received from a firm in my constituency, D. Fisher (Farms) Ltd. in Southminster. It says:
      "We have literally come to the end of the road. We cannot continue to operate lorries, as any income or earning potential has been killed off by the increase in fuel prices. Our lorries will be off the road at the end of the month. It is the end of an era after some 30 years in the haulage business".
      That is what the Government's policy is achieving. It is crippling British hauliers and pushing up the costs of British business. It is helping our foreign competitors and doing nothing to help the environment. That is why we oppose the escalator and why we shall vote against the clause.
      9.45 pm
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): This is my first Finance Bill Committee and I have to confess that I was rather puzzled that no amendments to the clause had been tabled by the
      242
      right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), but I realised that, given the shambles in which the Conservative party has found itself over the past week, Conservative Members have not had the time, and do not have the consistency, to be able to table any amendments at all.
      Conservative Members do not know what is their policy on health and education, they do not know what is their policy on the environment and they have given us no answer at all to the question asked repeatedly by my hon. Friends: if they succeeded in defeating the clause this evening, how would they fill the black hole in the finances?
      The right hon. Member for Horsham argued—as did his colleague, the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale)—that the fuel duty escalator, which the Conservatives introduced in 1993 and increased in 1995, was somehow right then, but is wrong now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) pointed out in a thoroughly robust contribution, the right hon. Gentleman's argument, which was based on diesel prices when the fuel duty escalator was introduced, was quite simply wrong.
      The right hon. Gentleman also argued that the fuel duty escalator was needed by the Conservative Government because our diesel prices were so much lower than those everywhere else in the European Union. Quite the opposite was the case. As the figures produced by the House of Commons Library have established, diesel prices in the United Kingdom in 1993 were the second highest in the EU. Only Italy's were higher.
      The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford referred to petrol. Only Ireland and Denmark had petrol prices higher than ours in 1993, and they were higher by only 1p.
      Mr. Whittingdale: On the price of petrol, is the Economic Secretary aware that, when he delivered his 1995 Budget speech, two years after the escalator was introduced, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said:
      "I intend to stick to my commitment to raise road fuel duties … Despite those increases, petrol prices in this country should remain lower than in any other major European country."—[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1064.]
      Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the previous Government. When they introduced the fuel duty escalator in 1993, petrol prices were higher in this country than they were in every other country except Ireland and Denmark, and diesel prices were higher than in every country except Italy. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was simply wrong on that issue.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I draw the Economic Secretary's attention to the Road Haulage Association document and, in particular, to table A-5 on page 12. It shows that, in 1993, the UK had almost the lowest petrol prices of all EU countries.
      Ms Hewitt: I am terribly sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point.[Interruption.] Here are the figures from the House of Commons Library. The hon. Gentleman is wrong, just as he was wrong in the debate

      243
      when he made a point about the reduction in CO2 emissions that will be achieved through Government policy. My hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) and for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) rightly argued that the case for the fuel duty escalator is the same now as it was when the Conservative Government introduced it in 1993 and increased it in 1995.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) spoke with great feeling. He has been entirely consistent, both in his support for the fuel duty escalator and in his request that commercial vehicles should be exempt. His consistency does him great credit and contrasts strikingly with the complete inconsistency of the Opposition. He asked what it would cost to exempt commercial vehicles from the fuel duty escalator. The answer is some £300 million to £400 million a year.
      The Road Haulage Association suggested that commercial vehicles should have a reduction of at least 21p a litre in diesel duty, but it also suggested—Conservative Members have not mentioned this—that that reduction should be paid for by a 3p per litre increase in duty for every other driver. That is quite unacceptable.
      I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington that it would be wrong to exempt hauliers from the fuel duty escalator, but to include in its scope emergency vehicles, doctors, nurses, rural motorists and anybody else with a diesel vehicle. It would be wrong to expect all other drivers to bear their share of reducing carbon dioxide and other polluting emissions, but not the road haulage industry.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Workington, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and several others raised the issue of the Brit disc—the Euro vignette. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport made it clear, as he had to the road haulage industry forum, that of course we shall examine that proposal carefully. However, I stress that, while there are many British vehicles driving on continental roads, there are very few European vehicles driving on British road. Indeed, less than 1 per cent. of lorry miles in this country are done by foreign vehicles, according to the latest figures available. That suggests two things: first, that the road haulage industry in this country is, as the Government have maintained, remarkably competitive; and, secondly, that the revenue from a Brit disc would be extremely small. It might even be too small to justify the administrative costs involved in collecting it. None the less, we shall look at that suggestion seriously, as we shall look at all the other suggestions made to us in the forum.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Workington and other hon. Members also raised the issue of the need to equalise rates of duty within the single market. I shall come to that point in a moment in relation to Northern Ireland. We are certainly arguing, within the European Union, for higher minimum rates of fuel duty across the European Union. There is no doubt whatever that higher minimum rates would assist in removing distortions that have arisen within the single market. However, it is not up to the United Kingdom to dictate to other member states how they should achieve their Kyoto targets and thus contribute to solving the problem of global warming.
      244
      The hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) both raised the serious problem of the smuggling of fuel across the border into Northern Ireland and the problem of quite legal cross-border shopping. As the hon. Member for East Antrim generously acknowledged, Customs and Excise has cracked down with considerable force on the problem of smuggling. Since the beginning of last year it has seized 63 vehicles and some half a million litres of fuel, and it has had admissions from those drivers that they have smuggled almost a further 25 million litres. Vigorous law enforcement action is being taken and we have strengthened the resources available to Customs and Excise to ensure that they can take that action.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend explain the justification for the escalator once we have met the Kyoto targets?
      Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have not only our internationally binding commitment to the Kyoto targets, but our own domestic commitment, from the last manifesto, to seek a further reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. I also refer my hon. Friend to the real and growing problem of poor local air quality. Important though greenhouse gases are, they are not the only pollution problem involved.
      The hon. Member for South Down referred to the system used across the border between Germany and the Netherlands. The differential in duty rates is compensated for, but that is not a tax differential. It is a subsidy given by the Dutch Government to businesses operating filling stations near the border. I understand that the European Commission is looking closely at the Dutch subsidy scheme on state aid grounds, but I shall certainly pass on that point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. As it is a subsidy and not a tax differential, it is a matter for her rather than for me.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Economic Secretary for giving way to me a second time. Can she tell me—if she cannot will she write to me—her Department's best estimate of how many UK jobs will be lost as a result of the Budget increase in the fuel escalator?
      Ms Hewitt: The estimates that have been offered by Conservative Members, which I think were taken from some of the road haulage groups, are completely absurd. The associations concerned have not been willing to share with us the basis of their estimates. The Conservative Government were responsible for 5,000 job losses in this industry.
      Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms Hewitt: Let me finish this answer. As has been acknowledged—
      Mr. Brady rose—
      Ms Hewitt: Let me finish this answer. As has been acknowledged by the industry, there are real problems of overcapacity. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport said last week, no Government can possibly give an assurance that there will never be job losses,

      245
      but I do not believe that there will be anything like the job losses that there were under the Conservative Government.
      Mr. Brady rose—
      Ms Hewitt: I shall not give way again, because I want to deal with the speech made by the hon. Member for Twickenham on behalf of the Liberal Democratic party. It is extremely interesting that his party, which claims to support environmental taxation, wills the ends of environmental taxation but is not willing to support the means. It has bottled out once again.
      What was interesting about the hon. Gentleman's speech was that he rightly stressed the need for environmental taxation so that we internalise the true costs of road transport and car usage into the price of petrol and the price of car usage. He is right about that. Conservative Members, who used to understand some of the basic principles of market economics, used to make the case for environmental taxation, but they seem to have given up on that as they have given up on so much.
      The hon. Member for Twickenham and many of my hon. Friends referred to the costs of pollution that are imposed by the road haulage industry and by motorists generally. [Interruption.]
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Conversations are breaking out throughout the Chamber. Hon. Members must listen to the Minister. [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members must listen to the Minister who is responding to the debate.
      Ms Hewitt: Thank you, Mr. Lord.
      I want to refer briefly to the costs of pollution from the road haulage industry and motorists generally in relation to local air quality. Twenty four per cent.—almost a quarter—of the particulates that are partly causing the problem of pollution and 47 per cent. of the pollution from nitrogen oxide come from the road haulage industry. We have reliable estimates that some 8,000 people die prematurely every year as a result of particulates pollution alone. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley rightly referred to the growing problem of asthma among children, to which I would add the growing problem not only of premature deaths but of ill health among elderly people suffering from chest infections.
      Other Labour Members made extremely important points. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) pointed out, quite rightly, that no one could trust the Conservatives on this issue.
      Neither we nor the voters will allow the Conservatives to forget their past. They may wish to tear up what they did in the last Government—and, in other respects, that does not surprise me. They may wish to tear up the green manifesto on which they fought the last election. We—in this clause, and in this Bill—are delivering on our commitments to balance the needs of motorists with the needs of the environment, and to deliver a cut in the pollution that is coming from road transport and motorists.
      The Committee divided: Ayes 305, Noes 177.

      Division No. 152]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Darvill, Keith

      Ainger, Nick

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Davidson, Ian

      Allen, Graham

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Dawson, Hilton

      Ashton, Joe

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Denham, John

      Austin, John

      Dismore, Andrew

      Barnes, Harry

      Dobbin, Jim

      Battle, John

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Bayley, Hugh

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Beard, Nigel

      Doran, Frank

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Dowd, Jim

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Drew, David

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Benton, Joe

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Edwards, Huw

      Berry, Roger

      Efford, Clive

      Best, Harold

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Blackman, Liz

      Ennis, Jeff

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foulkes, George

      Browne, Desmond

      Galloway, George

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gapes, Mike

      Burgon, Colin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Gerrard, Neil

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Cann, Jamie

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Caplin, Ivor

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Casale, Roger

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Caton, Martin

      Grocott, Bruce

      Cawsey, Ian

      Grogan, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gunnell, John

      Chaytor, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clelland, David

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Heppell, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coleman, Iain

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Connarty, Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Corbett, Robin

      Hoey, Kate

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hood, Jimmy

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cousins, Jim

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cranston, Ross

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Crausby, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cummings, John

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      (Copeland)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hurst, Alan

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hutton, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      247

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Olner, Bill

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jamieson, David

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jenkins, Brian

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Pearson, Ian

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Pendry, Tom

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Pond, Chris

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pope, Greg

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pound, Stephen

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kidney, David

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Primarolo, Dawn

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Purchase, Ken

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Radice, Giles

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Rammell, Bill

      Laxton, Bob

      Raynsford, Nick

      Lepper, David

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Levitt, Tom

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Rowlands, Ted

      Linton, Martin

      Roy, Frank

      Livingstone, Ken

      Ruane, Chris

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lock, David

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Love, Andrew

      Salter, Martin

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Sedgemore, Brian

      (Makerfield)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sheerman, Barry

      Macdonald, Calum

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McDonnell, John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McFall, John

      Singh, Marsha

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McNulty, Tony

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      MacShane, Denis

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McWatter, Tony

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Spellar, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Stevenson, George

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Stott, Roger

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Martlew, Eric

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Maxton, John

      Stringer, Graham

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Merron, Gillian

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      (Dewsbury)

      Miller, Andrew

      Taylor, Ms Dart (Stockton S)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Moffatt, Laura

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Timms, Stephen

      Morley, Elliot

      Todd, Mark

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Trickett, Jon

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Mountford, Kali

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Mudie, George

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mullin, Chris

      Vaz, Keith

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Watts, David

      248

      White, Brian

      Winnick, David

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Wise, Audrey

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      (Swansea W)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Mr. Clive Betts and

      Wills, Michael

      Mr. Keith Hill.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Allan, Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Amess, David

      Garnier, Edward

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Gibb, Nick

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Baker, Norman

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Ballard, Jackie

      Gray, James

      Beggs, Roy

      Green, Damian

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Greenway, John

      Bercow, John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Boswell, Tim

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Brady, Graham

      Hammond, Philip

      Brake, Tom

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Brazier, Julian

      Harvey, Nick

      Breed, Colin

      Hawkins, Nick

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Heyes, John

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Heald, Oliver

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Burnett, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Burns, Simon

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Horam, John

      (NE Fife)

      Howard, Gerald(Aldershot)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Cash, William

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Chidgey, David

      Jackson, Robert,(Wantage)

      Chope, Christopher

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Clappison, James

      Keetch, Paul

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Key, Robert

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Kirkwood, Archy

      (Rushcliffe)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lansley, Andrew

      Collins, Tim

      Letwin, Oliver

      Colvin, Michael

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Lidington, David

      Cotter, Brian

      Livsey, Richared

      Cran, James

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      (Perth)

      Loughton, Tim

      Dafis, Cynog

      Luff, Peter

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Lyell, Rt Hon sir Nicholas

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      McGrady, Eddie

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      & Howden)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Day, Stephen

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Malins, Humfrey

      Duncan, Alan

      Mallon, Seamus

      Duncan, Smith, Iain

      Maples, John

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Evans, Nigel

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Feber, David

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Moore, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fight, Howard

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Norman, Archie

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Oaten, Mark

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Öpik, Lembit

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Ottaway, Richard

      249

      Paice, James

      Taylor, John M (solihull)

      Paterson, Owen

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Pickles, Eric

      Thompson, William

      Prior, David

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Randall, John

      Trend, Michael

      Rendel, David

      Trimble, Rt Hon David

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Tyler, Paul

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Viggers, Peter

      Ruffley, David

      Walter, Robert

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Waterson, Nigel

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Webb, Steve

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Welsh, Andrew

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Shepherd, Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

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

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Wilkinson, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Willis, Phil

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Spring, Richard

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Steen, Anthony

      Woodward, Shaun

      Streeter, Gary

      Yeo, Tim

      Swayne, Desmond

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Swinney, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Syms, Robert

      Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Sir David Madel.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr, Robert Anisworth.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS
  Ordered,
  That it be an Instruction to the Join Committee on Financial Services and Markets that it report by 2th May 1999 on Parts V (employment in regulated activities), VI (Civil fines for market abuse) and XII (disciplinary measures of the draft bill in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights.—[Mr. Robert Anisworth.]

  PETITION

    Multiple Bityhs
    10.18 pm
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The petition has been drawn up with the assistance of the Twins and Multiple Births Association, known as TAMBA, to draw attention to the disadvantage that such parents suffer. From April this year, the eldest child will receive an increase of £2.95 in child benefit, but each subsequent child will receive only 30p. This ignores the fact that the second twin or child of a multiple birth will cost its parents virtually the same to raise. The benefit of being able to hand down articles from an older child is often lost, and I am sure that a number of hon. Members will closely identify with that problem.
    The petition states:
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Social Security to consider extending the benefit planned for eldest children to all children resulting from a multiple birth.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Rail Services (Wansbeck)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  10.20 pm
  Mr. Denis Murphy: I thank the House for allowing me this debate. My constituency is served by a limited passenger rail service. The east coast main line runs from the edge of the constituency. It provides limited access, and is, therefore, little used. The purpose of my debate is to make a case for the reopening of passenger services on the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne railway to give access to a population in excess of 200,000 people.
  There are strong social, powerful economic and pressing environmental arguments in favour of such a development. The railway between Ashington, Blyth and Tyneside has a long history, dating back to the earliest days of railways in the north-east. It was, not surprisingly, built with coal in mind. The developing collieries of south-east Northumberland needed to transport large volumes of coal to the staithes on the Tyne at Percy Main. Passenger services were introduced between Blyth and Newcastle in 1847, extended to North Seaton in 1859 and to Newbiggin-by-the-Sea in 1872.
  For about a century, passenger and freight trains ran side by side along a complex network of lines connecting Morpeth, Ashington, Bedlington, Tynemouth and Newcastle. By the 1950s, the growth in the number of cars and increasing competition from bus services resulted in the decline of passenger numbers. The service to Bedlington and Morpeth succumbed in 1950, and the remaining services were vulnerable to the attentions of the 1963 Beeching report on the future of railways.
  As expected, passenger trains were recommended for withdrawal, and services on the Blyth and Tyne line ended in November 1964. I remember that date, because I travelled on the very last passenger train to run on that line.
  Although passenger trains had gone, the Blyth and Tyne line continued to operate thanks to continued heavy freight flows to and from Blyth power station, Lynemouth and Ellington collieries, and North Blyth. Even main line trains could occasionally be seen, having been diverted from the east coast main line between Morpeth and Newcastle by engineering works or, occasionally, operational mishaps.
  The southern end of the line saw significant changes in the late 1970s, with the conversion of the British Rail north Tyne loop as part of the Tyne and Wear metro network. Fortunately, the requirements of freight services meant that a link with the main line was retained at Benton. Ever since passenger trains were withdrawn, a body of opinion in south-east Northumberland has favoured their restoration, not only to make journeys easier in the immediate area, but to reconnect to the national rail network to counteract a perception of remoteness.
  In its submission to the coalfields task force, Northumberland county council recognised that remoteness. An increasing emphasis is being placed on sustainability, encouraging development adjacent to transport corridors and the reuse of previously developed land and buildings. The problems in the coalfields may not always be as apparent as those in inner cities, but they
  252
  are, in many respects, comparable in scale and intensity. They are exacerbated by peripherality, both in the region and nationally. A fragmented settlement pattern poses a whole array of additional problems in delivering effective regeneration programmes.
  Rural and urban problems are interwoven throughout the area, giving it a distinctive character. The area has been described as being like an inner city that has been pulled apart, and that description is accurate.
  During the 1970s and 1980s, prevailing transport policies tended to favour investment in the road network over initiatives to strengthen the railway system, and little progress could be made.
  As the 1990s progressed, there was a growing realisation that unrestricted growth in the use of road vehicles, particularly private cars, would lead to problems of congestion and pollution that could be addressed partly by investment in public transport and other sustainable forms of transport. Supporters of the Blyth and Tyne line sensed that an opportunity to achieve our aims might be in the offing. In 1992, Northumberland county council, Wansbeck district council and Blyth Valley borough council pressed for the passenger train proposals to be included in the then Northern Region Councils Association proposals for rail travel. Then, as now, the case was made that train services could play an important part in supporting and strengthening the local economy, and improving the environment by providing an attractive alternative to the use of the private car.
  The economy of Wansbeck is fragile. The district council recently commissioned a survey by Sheffield Hallam university into unemployment and social exclusion. The study contended that the deteriorating situation in Wansbeck, following the industrial closures of the 1980s and 1990s—and from an already low baseline—had been largely overlooked by various Departments in their assessments of local needs and the prioritisation of funding bids under the single regeneration budget regime.
  There were several reasons: the relatively peripheral and northern location of the district, distant from the major conurbations of Tyneside, Wearside and Teesside; indeterminate spatial status as a coalfield area with some features in common with inner-city, rural and urban areas; deprivation in small towns, characterised by a proud but somewhat parochial and isolationist culture; an erroneous perception of Northumberland as a relatively affluent sub-region; and lack of attention to extreme disparities of wealth within and between districts.
  The district is in the top 6 per cent. of local authorities in Britain for concentrated poverty, and the top 5 per cent. for concentrated unemployment, according to Warwick university. On local economic performance and future prospects, it is even further disadvantaged and lies in the bottom 2.5 per cent. of British local authorities according to the Henley centre for forecasting. The combination of depressed local economic conditions and local concentrations of multiple deprivation justify the classification of Wansbeck as one of the areas of greatest need, as referred to in the new Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions policy statements on SRB funding, alongside higher profile deprived areas in metropolitan local authority districts across the United Kingdom. That is a grim and bleak

  253
  assessment of the underlying dynamism of the local economy, and yet another reason why we need passenger rail services to strengthen and develop it.
  In 1995, the campaign gathered momentum with the commissioning of a feasibility study into the potential for improved public transport services in south-east Northumberland. It included in its brief an appraisal of the prospects for passenger train services between Newbiggin, Ashington and Newcastle. At the same time, Regional Railways North East, then part of British Rail, was asked to comment on operational matters so that the practical aspects of running a train service could be addressed.
  The consultant's report was encouraging. Several options were examined in great detail. The first option involved an hourly service between Newcastle and Ashington, with new stations at Shiremoor West—for interchange with the Tyne and Wear Metro system—Seghill, Seaton Delaval, Newsham, Bedlington Green Lane and Ashington.
  Option 2 was an hourly service between Newcastle and Ashington calling at the seven new stations I have listed and New Hartley, West Blyth, Bebside and North Seaton. Newcastle to Newbiggin, my preferred route, was an hourly service based on the extensions outlined previously, and serving additional new stations at Woodhorn and Newbiggin. Other options were examined, but were considered at the time not to be particularly viable. The report concluded that the reintroduction of passenger trains between Newcastle, Ashington and Newbiggin was justifiable and warranted more detailed investigation.
  As part of its franchise commitment, Northern Spirit, the local train operator, was required to undertake a feasibility study into the provision of new local rail services. That was another welcome development. November 1997 saw the first scheduled passenger train between Newcastle and Ashington for 33 years. A special service for the county council's highway and transport committee, with the co-operation of Northern Spirit, it represented an awareness-raising exercise that was well covered by the local media. The special train raised the profile of the project and demonstrated the potential of the route as part of an integrated public transport strategy for the area.
  Nexus, operator of the Tyne and Wear network, also gave the project its active support and examined the potential for linkage between the Blyth and Tyne line and the metro system. It was suggested that an interchange facility at Backworth, where the Blyth and Tyne and metro routes run side by side, would open up the range of journey opportunities in Northumberland and Tyneside, while not jeopardising the concept of a fast and direct train service to and from Newcastle central station and the rest of the rail network.
  Railtrack also provided technical input which showed the likely costs associated with passenger services and the frequency with which trains could run, bearing in mind existing freight traffic that was using the route and track and signalling constraints.
  In 1998, a working group was set up to include council representatives and transport operators to make further progress. Membership of the group included ARRIVA Northumbria. It was recognised that liaison with the major bus operator in the area of the Blyth and Tyne line was
  254
  important to minimise the prospect of direct competition which would ultimately be detrimental to both bus and train services.
  Publication of the Government's White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" in July 1998 represented a further boost to the prospects of the return of passenger trains. It confirmed the Government's shift away from road building and towards public transport-based alternatives, and promised financial help towards such projects as the Blyth and Tyne by means of an infrastructure investment fund and the rail passenger partnership scheme.
  Those new funds are a practical manifestation of the Government's wish to encourage a shift away from car use, while supporting investment proposals that help to provide an integrated transport network. At the same time, planning policies have been amended to support developments and locations which increase the use of public transport and attempt to reduce distances travelled by car.
  Public transport corridors will increasingly become a focus of housing and commercial development. Given the successful reintroduction of passenger rail services, the Blyth and Tyne corridor could become a growth area for jobs, services and homes, to the benefit of all those living in south-east Northumberland. Such a proposal will help move towards integrated transport, reduce car use, congestion and pollution and, more importantly, perhaps reduce social exclusion by increasing access to jobs and services.
  In conclusion, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to support the proposal. The capital cost of new stations and improved signalling will be about the same as the cost of one mile of new motorway. The initial revenue loss could be turned into a profit based on 4,500 single journeys a day—an opportunity for us to provide a truly integrated transport system.
  As I said earlier, I travelled on the last passenger train 35 years ago. With my hon. Friend's help, I look forward to the Government, if necessary, bridging the gap. I hope that I am one of the first passengers to travel on the first train from Wansbeck to Westminster.
  10.34 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) not only on obtaining this debate but on giving such a passionate and detailed understanding of the importance of our railways to so many areas of our national life and for detailing again—it made chilling hearing—the almost wanton disregard of the previous Administration for the needs of his part of the United Kingdom.
  As my hon. Friend pointed out, the transport White Paper sets out the Government's aim to provide a transport system that is safe, efficient, clean and fair, and makes it easier for people to make more sustainable travel choices, leading to less congested and polluted roads. Many of our towns and cities are now facing significant levels of congestion and pollution, placing a burden on business and resulting in a poor quality of life for people who live and work there. Our aim is to reduce people's dependency on the car by delivering real alternatives—such as better public transport and improved facilities for

  255
  cycling and walking. Our railway network will have a central role in an integrated transport system, and if we are to persuade people of the benefits of switching from car to rail, we must provide more and better train services.
  My hon. Friend may be aware that, to encourage further investment in the network, we have provided the franchising director with two new sources of investment funding via the rail passenger partnership and the infrastructure investment funds. They are aimed at supporting new investment proposals to produce wider benefits for both integrated transport and a modal shift to rail that could not be taken forward without public sector financial support. Of course, Railtrack remains responsible for funding investment in rail infrastructure where there is a commercial case and in accordance with its licence obligations.
  The rail passenger partnership scheme is designed specifically to encourage and support innovative proposals at the regional and local level that develop rail use, and promote modal shift and integration with other forms of transport. Funding for the RPP scheme will be awarded by the franchising director—as part of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority—and will be channelled through franchised train operators.
  We encourage local authorities and others to present to the franchising director proposals consistent with the strategies set out in our transport White Paper. Sponsors should prepare a business case in consultation with the relevant train operator, Railtrack and other local authorities. The business case will allow the franchising director to estimate the likely level of public sector funding required to support the scheme and whether the proposed expenditure represents value for money. The franchising director's interim planning criteria will provide guidance to any party submitting a proposal and the Government will look to the franchising director to undertake appraisal of any proposal that is put to him objectively, and to give fair consideration to all the proposals for new services that he receives. Under those criteria, he would look for genuine value for money and a real passenger benefit from schemes that he is asked to support.
  My hon. Friend referred to the south-east Northumberland transport study conducted in 1996, but the franchising director has not—as far as I am aware—received a business case or any proposals from local authorities for the reopening of rail passenger services in the Wansbeck area. I understand that such a proposal has been the subject of discussions involving the county and district councils, the passenger transport executive, Nexus, the relevant transport providers, Northern Spirit and Railtrack. Opraf—the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising—stands ready to advise applicants, and will be issuing revised criteria for the allocation of financial support. Those criteria will take account of the development of multi-modal appraisal techniques that establish a level playing field for appraisal of different transport modes.
  My hon. Friend may also know that Opraf is taking forward a wide-ranging consultation on the future development of rail services, addressing the type and level of services that the rail network should provide, consistent with the Government's objectives for integrated transport policy, value for money and affordability. The views of
  256
  both passenger and freight users will be heard and the consultation will focus on establishing priorities for rail at national, regional and local level. Views will be sought on how local government can develop land use strategies that fully exploit the economic potential of rail to meet future transport needs. A key question is how the rail industry and stakeholders should be working together to achieve improvements in the rail network. The parties in my hon. Friend's constituency may wish to respond to this consultation, so that their voices are heard.
  The results of the Opraf consultation will feed into the shadow Strategic Rail Authority's plans for the rail network. They will also assist in the evaluation of Railtrack's 1999 network management statement and help in forming a view on the outputs that the shadow SRA will want Railtrack to provide. The SRA will form an early view on priorities for developing the network in consultation with local authorities, regional planning conferences and other organisations. We have made it clear that local authorities have a fundamental role in initiating local rail schemes.
  Our White Paper made available funds to assist in providing a better local public transport system, including rail and bus passenger transport. The centrepiece of that approach will be local transport plans, which will be the key to the delivery of integrated transport locally. This summer, local authorities will submit provisional plans setting out their proposals for delivering integrated transport over a five-year period. Those plans will cover all forms of transport, including rail.
  Many of the problems that we face in transport policy are essentially local, and local transport plans will provide local solutions to those problems within a coherent national framework. To do that, the plans must be founded on active partnership with local users, providers and businesses, for only in that way will we achieve lasting consensus at local level.
  There needs to be partnership and accountability in developing the railways as part of an integrated transport system. The Government are determined to play their part in creating an effective public transport network that people will choose to use, but local authorities and the private sector also have a vital role. We will all share the benefits of a sustainable transport system and we must share the responsibility for achieving it.
  We anticipate partnership between the public and private sectors and closer liaison between central and local government on transport planning. The strategy and commitments in our White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" will serve to benefit rail passengers and facilitate worthwhile investment in new schemes, through partnership between Government, regional and local authorities and private sector operators and sponsors.
  We believe that together those plans will help us to develop a better railway service attuned to the expectations of rail passengers, which is in line with our policies on integrated transport, and which will equip us to provide a rail system with an infrastructure appropriate to the 21st century. The measures that I have described demonstrate this Government's commitment to public transport enhancements at national, regional and local level to the benefit of all sectors of the community.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cashmere
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to support the cashmere industry. [77648]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department has worked hard to support the UK cashmere knitwear industry. In response to the US threat of punitive duties on imports of cashmere knitwear from the EU, we announced a bond scheme which indemnified exporters of UK-manufactured cashmere against losses arising from the US action. In the event, and after intensive lobbying from the UK Government, the US removed cashmere knitwear from the list of products subject to the US retaliation.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the implementation of the provisions of the minimum wage legislation. [81940]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We estimate that implementation of the national minimum wage has directly benefited almost 2 million workers. Initial feedback indicates that very few employers are deliberately seeking to evade their responsibilities. Recent research commissioned by Reed Personnel Services shows that almost 9 out of 10 companies surveyed support the national minimum wage in principle and were paying their workers the minimum wage rates in advance of its introduction on 1 April.

  The Inland Revenue is enforcing the national minimum wage policy, and will supply this Department with data on all matters relating to compliance on a regular basis. Further information on the impact of the introduction of the minimum wage will be available once official statistics are published in the autumn.

  Standards (Goods and Services)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulations apply to the standards of goods and services sent to the United Kingdom by companies based overseas; and if he will make a statement. [82043]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 April 1999]: As far as I am aware, all the regulations for which my Department has responsibility dealing with goods and services supplied in the UK, apply irrespective of whether the company supplying those goods or services are based within the UK or elsewhere overseas.

  ECGD
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the future of the Export Credits Guarantee Department's reinsurance facilities. [82624]

  Mr. Wilson
  Following the privatisation of ECGD's Insurance Services Group in 1991, which was responsible for providing credit insurance in respect of raw materials, consumer durables type exports normally sold on up to 6 months credit, ECGD has provided reinsurance support to private sector credit insurers when there has been a lack of private reinsurance for this class of exports. Since then, demand for ECGD reinsurance has declined as private market capacity has increased. ECGD is to conduct a review of its role in the provision of reinsurance. This will be preceded by a public consultation which will commence shortly. The results of the review are expected in the Autumn.

  A copy of ECGD's consultation document has been placed in the Library of the House.

WALES

  National Assembly
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meetings he has had with the Assembly election campaign leaders of each of the political parties. [79387]

  Mr. Michael
  I am not sure what is meant by "election campaign leaders". I have had no meetings with any individuals in respect of the organisation of the Assembly election campaign for their Party. I have had many contacts with Welsh MPs, including the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), as the leaders of their Welsh Parliamentary Parties, and as there are no Welsh Conservative MPs, with the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) as the spokesperson for the Conservative Party on Welsh Affairs. I have also had regular informal contact with Mr. Rod Richards and Mr. Mike German as the respective leaders of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party in Wales.

  Inward Investment
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the work he has done to secure(a) Korean and (b) Japanese inward investment into the United Kingdom. [81102]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 16 April 1999]: In addition to taking any opportunity to promote Wales to overseas markets, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Wales has hosted a reception at Lancaster House for senior Japanese industrialists and has written to potential and existing investors. He has also met the Ambassador of each country.

  I led an inward investment mission to Japan last October. These efforts have been in addition to the day-to-day efforts of the Welsh Development Agency.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Long-standing Illnesses
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have been diagnosed as suffering limiting long-standing illness or disability in each of the (i) unitary and (ii) health authority areas in Wales for each of the past 10 years. [81338]

  Numbers with a limiting long-term illness, by authority

  Health authority

  Local authority

  Long-term illness, health problems or handicap limiting daily activities or work that can be done 1991 Census of population

  Long-standing illness, disability or infirmity having troubled or likely to affect a person over a period of time 1997 Welsh household interview survey estimates 1

  North Wales

  91,275

  97,400

  Isle of Anglesey

  9,463

  11,400

  Gwynedd

  15,522

  15,300

  Conwy

  16,140

  15,500

  Denbighshire

  14,179

  14,200

  Flintshire

  18,093

  20,700

  Wrexham

  17,878

  20,300

  Dyfed Powys

  69,395

  70,800

  Powys

  15,510

  14,200

  Ceredigion

  8,320

  7,900

  Pembrokeshire

  15,239

  13,500

  Carmarthenshire

  30,326

  35,200

  Morgannwg

  89,493

  92,500

  Swansea

  37,951

  41,300

  Neath Port Talbot

  28,799

  28,200

  Bridgend

  22,743

  23,000

  Bro Taf

  115,054

  117,000

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  14,793

  17,900

  Cardiff

  38,426

  40,400

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  49,016

  46,200

  Merthyr Tydfil

  12,819

  12,500

  Gwent

  92,801

  96,500

  Caerphilly

  32,665

  33,700

  Blaenau Gwent

  15,291

  16,100

  Torfaen

  15,535

  16,400

  Monmouthshire

  9,653

  8,000

  Newport

  19,657

  22,300

  Wales

  458,018

  474,100

  1Figures may not add-up exactly due to rounding

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Workless Households
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children were living in workless households in each local authority area in Wales in each of the past 10 years. [81331]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The only available information, as given in the following table, is based on the 1991 Census of Population and the 1997 Welsh Household Interview Survey, the latter being a sample survey and subject to sampling error. The two sources are not wholly comparable, but can be used as an indication of the relative numbers by authority in each year.
  86
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information on the basis of a diagnosis is not centrally available. The only available information, as given in the table, is based on the 1991 Census of Population and the 1997 Welsh Household Interview Survey, the latter being a sample survey and subject to sampling error. The two sources are not wholly comparable, but can be used as an indication of the relative numbers by authority in each year.

  Children living in workless households, by authority

  Dependent children in households with no adult in employment

  Dependent children in households with no one of working age in work

  1991 census of population

  1997 Welsh Household Interview Survey estimates1

  Isle of Anglesey

  2,884

  2,800

  Gwynedd

  3,937

  5,500

  Conwy

  3,157

  6,100

  Denbighshire

  2,917

  4,100

  Flintshire

  4,193

  6,800

  Wrexham

  4,874

  6,500

  Powys

  2,690

  3,800

  Ceredigion

  1,889

  2,400

  Pembrokeshire

  4,726

  6,700

  Carmarthenshire

  5,862

  8,500

  Swansea

  11,264

  14,400

  87

  Children living in workless households, by authority

  Dependent children in households with no adult in employment

  Dependent children in households with no one of working age in work

  1991 census of population

  1997 Welsh Household Interview Survey estimates 1

  Neath Port Talbot

  6,488

  9,300

  Bridgend

  5,750

  6,900

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  4,446

  5,900

  Cardiff

  15,986

  17,500

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  13,131

  16,600

  Merthyr Tydfil

  4,266

  6,700

  Caerphilly

  9,402

  12,300

  Blaenau Gwent

  4,048

  5,100

  Torfaen

  4,368

  5,500

  Monmouthshire

  1,627

  2,800

  Newport

  7,563

  11,300

  Wales

  125,468

  167,600

  1 Figures do not add up exactly due to rounding

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Depression
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have been diagnosed as suffering from depression in each (i) health and (ii) unitary authority area in Wales in each of the past 10 years. [81339]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  In the Welsh Health Survey, a postal survey carried out in 1995, people were asked "Do you have depression now that you have had for 3 months or more?". The following table shows, by health authority and unitary authority, the percentage of the respondents (aged 18 and over) who answered yes. Because of possible response bias in surveys of this nature, the figures given may overstate the actual prevalence of the condition in the population.

  Information for other years is not available centrally.

  Percentage of adult population (aged 18 and over) reporting depression, 1995

  Area of residence

  North Wales health authority

  6.1

  Isle of Anglesey

  5.1

  Gwynedd

  6.1

  Conwy

  6.1

  Denbighshire

  5.2

  Flintshire

  6.1

  Wrexham

  6.9

  Dyfed Powys health authority

  7.6

  Powys

  6.9

  Ceredigion

  7.7

  Pembrokeshire

  7.5

  Carmarthenshire

  7.9

  Morgannwg health authority

  7.3

  Swansea

  6.9

  Neath Port Talbot

  8.8

  Bridgend

  6.7

  Bro Taf health authority

  8.7

  Vale of Glamorgan

  7.4

  Cardiff

  7.3

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  10.7

  Merthyr Tydfil

  10.5

  88

  Percentage of adult population (aged 18 and over) reporting depression, 1995

  Area of residence

  Gwent health authority

  7.2

  Caerphilly

  8.4

  Blaenau Gwent

  10.4

  Torfaen

  7.2

  Monmouthshire

  4.0

  Newport

  6.5

  Wales

  7.4

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total number of genetically modified food trial sites; how frequently they have been inspected by the Health and Safety Executive; and if he will list those sites which have not been inspected in the past 12 months. [72677]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: Since the current regulations came into force in 1993, genetically modified crops have been grown on approximately 373 individual test sites, some at the same research establishments or farms. In the coming growing season, we have received notifications that genetically modified crops will be grown at 65 different sites.

  There is no set pattern of inspection. In previous years about half of the active test sites have been inspected each year. From April 1999, inspections will increase so that at least one test site from each consent is inspected. In total, we expect about 70 to 80 site inspections to take place and repeat inspections will be carried out where necessary. Also from this year, an annual report on inspection activities is to be produced listing the sites which were inspected. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library as soon as the report is produced.

  Genetically Modified Animals
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many genetically modified animals, by species, have been exported in each year from 1990 to date, and to where. [81262]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 April 1999]: The information requested is not available. There is no requirement to keep or collect such information.

  Anyone intending to use premises for the keeping of genetically modified animals in the United Kingdom must give prior notification to the Health and Safety Executive under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations, but there is no requirement to keep records of the export of such animals.
  89
  The keeping of genetically modified mammals is subject to licencing by the Home Office and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. The Home Office collects figures on the discharge of transgenic animals but these figures do not distinguish between export and other methods of discharge such as humane killing.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to have gathered enough scientific evidence from farm-scale testing of genetically modified crops to make an assessment of the environmental and wildlife consequences of the commercial growing of such crops. [81639]

  Mr. Meacher
  It is difficult to give a clear statement about when we expect to have gathered enough scientific evidence, but the programme of ecological studies will run for three years in the first instance.

  In the first year, the evaluations of the effects of the management of the GM crops on wildlife will be carried out on a limited number of sites, as explained in my answer given today to my hon. Friend's other question (PQ 81638). The first year's work will establish the methodology for future years, but will also generate information which could give an early indication of whether there could be adverse effects.

  The work in the subsequent years 2000 and 2001 will be carried out on at least 20 sites for each crop. Because this work is carried out on a greater number of sites, the results will have greater statistical significance. The research contractors will be following the crops through the cropping rotations in subsequent years.

  To ensure that this work is scientifically sound, we are in the process of appointing an independent steering committee to oversee the experimental design and methodologies, the statistics, and to advise on the interpretation of the results. I will consider the advice of this committee about at what stage we have gathered enough evidence and whether, and if so, what further studies need to be carried out. The work will be reviewed year by year and we will use this to decide how best to proceed with the managed development of GM crops in the UK.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for farm-scale test sites for genetically modified crops in addition to the three he announced on 15 April in the current year. [81638]

  Mr. Meacher
  This year, three fields of genetically modified (GM) spring oilseed rape and four fields of GM maize will be planted for the farm-scale evaluations and compared with a similar number of fields of equivalent non-GM crops. It is anticipated that three to five fields of GM winter oilseed rape will be planted in August.

  In subsequent years, at least 20 fields of each crop will be planted to enable the evaluations to be carried out at a scale which will generate sufficient information to ensure
  90
  that a rigorous statistical analysis can be carried out to identify whether or not the management of the GM crops results in indirect effects on wildlife compared to non-GM crops.

  Information on the farm-scale evaluations will be published shortly on the DETR Website (www.environment.detr.gov.uk/acre/wildlife/index.htm).

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what regulations he has applied to the dispersal of seed from genetically modified crops grown in farm-scale test sites over the next five years. [81640]

  Mr. Meacher
  All the releases of genetically modified (GM) crops will be carried out under the appropriate authorisations in accordance with the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992, as amended. With respect to the control of dispersal of seed, the farmers growing the crops will in addition be applying the guidelines being prepared by the industry body Supply Chain Initiative for Modified Agricultural Crops (SCIMAC). The draft guidelines cover the issue of seed dispersal, and farmers will be advised to take the necessary precautions to prevent seed spillage and dispersal.

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what quality control measures are in place to ensure that highway repairs undertaken by the Highways Agency are of adequate durability. [81957]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Highway repairs undertaken by the Highways Agency are usually procured under contract and the terms of the contract include the "Specification for Highway Works" (the latest edition was published by the Stationery Office in May 1998). This is the main document that sets out the performance, materials and workmanship requirements.

  Workmanship on site and contract compliance is supervised by suitably qualified and experienced highway engineers and inspectors commissioned by the Highways Agency.

  The specification includes detail of checkpoints at which suppliers provide the Highway's Agency's agents with evidence of compliance with the specification either by testing of materials and/or by staged inspection of the work. Work is not accepted until it is certified as meeting the requirements of the
  specification.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he plans to bring into force the contaminated land regime in Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; [81798]

  (2) when he plans to lay guidance issued under the contaminated land regime before each House of Parliament; [81799]
  91
  (3) what plans he has to consult the public on proposed guidance under the contaminated land regime before it is laid before Parliament. [81800]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 26 April 1999)Implementation of the contaminated land regime in Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is dependent upon statutory guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State, and also on secondary legislation.

  The Act requires the Secretary of State to consult the Environment Agency and others before he issues that guidance. Two rounds of consultation on draft texts have been carried out. We intend to issue a further draft of the guidance, for a final round of consultations, in June, with the aim of laying the final draft before each House of Parliament before the Summer recess. We intend to make the Commencement Order and Regulations necessary to implement the Part IIA regime at the same time.

  This should enable us to bring the regime into force in England on 1 December. Implementation of the regime in Scotland and Wales is the responsibility of their respective Secretaries of State.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the current maximum sentence for serious offences relating to asbestos. [81026]

  Mr. Meale
  At present, the higher courts may impose unlimited fines for Health and Safety at work offences, including those related to asbestos, and may imprison people for breaching asbestos licensing requirements. The lower courts may fine up to £20,000 for certain charges, which may be brought in asbestos-related cases, and up to £5,000 for others. However, within the broad statutory limits set by Parliament, sentences in individual cases are a matter for the Courts alone.

  I am concerned that the general level of penalties imposed by the Courts for Health and Safety offences, including those related to asbestos, do not match their seriousness, especially given that lives are being put at risk. The Government are considering what can be done to address this, including consideration of whether the available maximum penalties remain appropriate.

  Motor Insurers Bureau
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what organisations and individuals he has(a) consulted,

  Vacant dwelling stock, by category of ownership, as at 1 April 1998

  Unitary authority

  Registered social landlords

  All other tenures 1

  Total stock

  Bath and North East Somerset

  133

  21

  1,231

  1,385

  Bristol

  679

  368

  4,550

  5,597

  North Somerset

  98

  19

  3,673

  3,790

  South Gloucestershire

  74

  252

  2,429

  2,555

  1 All Other Tenures covers "other public" and "other private" sectors as reported on HIP returns

  2Denotes HIP data not available; Housing Corporation Regulatory and Statistical Return (RSR) information (as at 31 March) used

  Source

  DETR Housing Investment Programme 01 Returns 1998
  92
  (b) received requests for consultation from and (c) received representations from concerning his proposals for changes to the Motor Insurers Bureau arrangements. [82336]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Representations have been received over the years since the last revision from many applicants, their legal representatives and from solicitors' organisations. Representations have also been received from the European Commission. All of these are taken into consideration in the review of the Agreements. We have recently received and accepted a request from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers that they be consulted in the review of the Uninsured Drivers Agreement which is nearing completion.

  Trains (Reliability)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with(a) Great Western Trains and (b) South Wales and West Railway about improving reliability. [81907]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Secretary of State had general discussions with both these Train Operating Companies at the November 1998 and February 1999 Rail Summits. OPRAF monitors the performance of franchise agreements by Train Operating Companies and agrees remedial action with them as necessary to ensure compliance with contractual obligations. The reliability and punctuality of Train Operating Companies is reported in OPRAF's Quarterly Bulletins, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Planning Obligations
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to publish new guidelines on the use of planning obligations. [81908]

  Mr. Raynsford
  It is planned to issue a Consultation Paper on Planning Obligations this year. Current guidelines on the use of Planning Obligations are set out in DOE Circular 1/97.

  Vacant Dwellings (Avon)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many vacant dwellings there are in each of the unitary authorities in the former county of Avon. [82302]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The latest available data are as follows:

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Subsidiarity
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those topics to which subsidiarity cannot apply, being wholly within the sole competence of the European Union. [81430]

  Ms Quin
  There are two topics which are solely within the competence of the European Community by virtue of the Community Treaties, and to which subsidiarity is therefore not applicable. These are: (a)the Common Commercial Policy; and (b)the Common Fisheries Policy insofar as it relates to conservation of marine resources.

  The Community may also acquire implied exclusive competence by enacting legislation which restricts the ability of Member States to act in a particular area as long as that legislation is in force. Examples of such areas are parts of the Single Market and the Common Agricultural Policy. However, before enacting this legislation, the Community would, since entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty, have had to take subsidiarity concerns into account.

  Departmental Legal Business
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's policy when(a) conducting legal proceedings and (b) seeking legal advice as to the circumstances in which Queen's Counsel should be instructed; and for each of the last three years (i) on how many occasions his Department instructed Queen's Counsel and (ii) what was the total cost of instructing Queen's Counsel.[81754]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer he received from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General on 26 April 1999,Official Report, column 1. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office conducts very few proceedings in the UK domestic courts. For proceedings in international tribunals, such as the International Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights, nominations of Counsel to represent the United Kingdom are always sought from the Attorney-General, bearing in mind the level of national importance of a particular issue and the legal expertise required.

  Iran
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects diplomatic representation with Iran to be raised to the level of ambassador. [82216]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The exchange of ambassadors with Iran was part of the agreement between the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and his Iranian counterpart Dr. Kharrazi in New York last September. We remain committed to this and expect that the exchange will take place in the next few weeks.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to continue to make representations to the Iranian Government on the position of followers of the Baha'i faith currently living in Iran; and if he will make a statement [82155]
  94
  Mr. Fatchett
  We and our EU partners have regularly raised with the Iranian authorities our concerns over certain aspects of their human rights record, and in particular the plight of the Baha'i community in Iran.

  An EU sponsored resolution at the recent United Nations Commission on Human Rights, including firm language on the plight of the Baha'is, was adopted on 23 April.

  We will continue to raise these matters with the Iranian Government in bilateral and EU contracts.

  Algeria
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Algerian Government on co-operation with the UN(a) Special Rapporteur on Torture, (b) Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions and (c) Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances; and what undertakings he has received from the Algerian Government in this regard. [81986]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I visited the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva on 31 March to deliver the UK national speech. In it, I mentioned our disappointment at Algeria's continued refusal to grant access to the Special Rapporteurs on Torture and on Extrajudicial Killings. With our support, the EU also urged the Algerian government to cooperate with the UN Working Group on Enforced Disappearances.

  We have received no undertakings from the Algerian government to cooperate with these UN bodies, even though they are obliged to do so by UN rules.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government are proposing to take at this year's UN Commission on Human Rights in respect of human rights abuses in Algeria. [81987]

  Mr. Fatchett
  While delivering the UK national speech to this year's UN Commission on Human Rights on 31 March, I expressed our continued disappointment at Algeria's refusal to allow UN human rights bodies access to the country, even though they are obliged to do so.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the discussion held with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar on 20 April. [82028]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 April 1999]: My right hon. Friend did not meet the Chief Minister on 20 April. However, I had a useful discussion with him which covered the European Parliament vote; financial services; Schengen; Moroccan workers in Gibraltar; and the UK/Spain Summit.

  European Union Council
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  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 May and the major European Union events for the next six months. [82623]
  95
  Ms Quin
  The information is as follows:

  Monthly forecast of business: May 1999

  Date

  >Venue

  >Event

  3–7

  >Strasbourg

  >European Parliament Plenary

  6

  >Brussels

  >EU-ACP Ministerial meeting

  7–9

  >Weimar

  >Environment Ministers (Informal)

  10

  >Brussels

  >ECOFIN

  10–11

  >Berlin

  >Trade Ministers (Informal)

  11

  >Brussels

  >Energy Council

  17–18

  >Brussels

  >General Affairs Council

  17–18

  >Brussels

  >Agriculture Council

  18

  >Brussels

  >EEA Council

  18

  >Brussels

  >Co-operation Council with Russia

  18–19

  >Weimar

  >Culture Ministers (Informal)

  20

  >Brussels

  >Research Council

  21

  >Brussels

  >Development Council

  25

  >Brussels

  >ECOFIN

  25

  >Brussels

  >Labour and Social Affairs Council

  27

  >Brussels

  >Youth Council

  27–28

  >Brussels

  >Justice and Home Affairs Council

  31

  >Brussels

  >General Affairs Council

  30 May-1 June

  >Dresden

  >Agriculture Ministers (Informal)

  No agendas have yet been circulated for the above meetings.

  European Calendar: May-October 1999

  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.

  Date

  >Venue

  >Event

  May

  3–7

  >Strasbourg

  >European Parliament Plenary

  6

  >Brussels

  >EU-ACP Ministerial meeting

  7–9

  >Weimar

  >Environment Ministers (Informal)

  10

  >Brussels

  >ECOFIN

  10–11

  >Berlin

  >Trade Ministers (Informal)

  11

  >Brussels

  >Energy Council

  17–18

  >Brussels

  >General Affairs Council

  17–18

  >Brussels

  >Agriculture Council

  18

  >Brussels

  >EEA Council

  18

  >Brussels

  >Co-operation Council with Russia

  18–19

  >Weimar

  >Culture Ministers (Informal)

  20

  >Brussels

  >Research Council

  21

  >Brussels

  >Development Council

  25

  >Brussels

  >ECOFIN

  25

  >Brussels

  >Labour and Social Affairs Council

  27

  >Brussels

  >Youth Council

  27–28

  >Brussels

  >Justice and Home Affairs Council

  31

  >Brussels

  >General Affairs Council

  30 May-1 June

  >Dresden

  >Agriculture Ministers (Informal)

  June

  1

  Dresden

  Agriculture Ministers (Informal)

  3–4

  >Cologne

  >European Council

  7

  >Luxembourg

  >Education Council

  8

  >Luxembourg

  >Health Council

  10

  >Luxembourg

  >Fisheries Council

  10–13

  European Parliament Elections

  14

  Luxembourg

  >ECOFIN (possible)

  14–15

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  17

  Bonn

  EU-Japan Summit

  17–18

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  21

  Luxembourg

  Internal Market Council

  21

  Bonn

  EU-USA/Canada Summit

  21–22

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  22

  Luxembourg

  Labour and Social Affairs Council (possible)

  24–25

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  25–29

  Rio de Janeiro

  EU-Latin America/Caribbean Summit

  28

  Luxembourg

  Culture Council

  96

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  July

  2–3

  Oulu

  Industry and Research Ministers (Informal)

  9–10

  Oulu

  Labour/Social Affairs Ministers (Informal)

  12

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  16

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  18–20

  Savonlinna

  Culture/Audiovisual Ministers (Informal)

  19–20

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  19–20

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  20–23

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  23–25

  Helsinki

  Environment Ministers (Informal)

  26–28

  Brussels

  EU-ACP Ministerial Meeting

  August

  No Council Business

  September

  4–5

  Saariselka

  Foreign Ministers (Informal)

  10–11

  Turku

  ECOFIN (Informal)

  12–14

  Tampere

  Agriculture Ministers (Informal)

  13–14

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  13–17

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  16–17

  Turku

  Justice and Home Affairs Ministers (Informal)

  23

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  24–25

  Tampere

  Education Ministers (Informal)

  27–28

  Kuopio

  Ministers of Housing

  27–28

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  October

  4–5

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  4–5

  Tampere

  Regional Policy Ministers

  6

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  7

  Brussels

  Internal Market

  8

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  11–2

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  11–12

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  15–16

  Tampere

  Special European Council

  18–19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  22

  Brussels

  Labour/Social Affairs Council

  26

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  28

  Brussels

  Research Council

  29

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

PRIME MINISTER

  Economic Sovereignty
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out his definition of the term "pooling of economic sovereignty". [81737]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral statement given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27 October 1997,Official Report, columns 583–88.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his Department's policy when(a) conducting legal proceedings and (b) seeking legal advice as to the circumstances in which Queen's Counsel should be instructed; and for each of the last three years (i) on how many occasions his Department instructed Queen's Counsel and (ii) what was the total cost of instructing Queen's Counsel. [81765]
  97
  Mr. Timms
  The Department does use Queen's Counsel in the conduct of its litigation. They are used for important and complex cases. For the rest, the Department uses the panel counsel referred to in the Written Answer to the hon. Member from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General on 26 April 1999,Official Report, columns 1–2. Approval for off-panel counsel is sought from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General as necessary. Records are not maintained in a form which would enable the number of occasions in which the Department has instructed Queen's Counsel to be identified in the last three years and the cost of doing so would incur disproportionate cost.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much it would be possible to increase the basic state pension, taking into account savings on means-tested benefits and increases in income tax revenues, if the £100 winter fuel payment were abolished and all the proceeds spent on the basic state pension. [81975]

  Mr. Timms
  The amount allocated for Winter Fuel Payments for 1999–2000 is £0.8 billion. We estimate that this would provide an increase in the basic State pension for one year only in the order of £2.55 a week for Category A cases and £1.50 a week for category BL cases.

  Notes

  1. The gross costs underlying this estimate have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  2. Income tax offsets were provided by the Inland Revenue.

  3. Means-tested benefit offsets were estimated using the 1996–97 Family Resources Survey and the 1997 Quarterly Statistical Enquiry and are in 1999–2000 prices, earnings and benefit levels.

  4. The estimate provides a broad order of magnitude and is rounded to the nearest£0.05.

  Benefits (Private Sector)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further plans he has to involve the private sector in the delivery of benefits. [82291]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no plans to use the private sector to deliver Social Security benefits. However, we will be using the private sector to support the delivery of new systems and to support staff to manage the changes needed to achieve the Government's objectives for Welfare Reform.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of Single Focus Work Gateway pilot projects include private sector involvement. [82293]

  Angela Eagle
  Ministers decided in November 1998 that in 4 of the 12 Single Work-focused Gateway (SWFG) areas, organisations from the private and/or voluntary sector would be invited to lead the delivery of SWFG. We would expect to see all successful organisations finally selected to deliver SWFG working in partnership with local organisations from the voluntary, private and public sector within each locality.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the reduction in the number of public sector jobs as a result of the use of the private sector for benefit delivery. [82292]

  Angela Eagle
  None.

  Pensions (Green Paper)
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a list of the individuals and organisations that commented on "A New Contract for Welfare-Partnership in Pensions" (Cm 4179). [82635]

  Mr. Timms
  A total of 581 responses to the Green Paper on pensions were received. I have arranged for a list, in the order of receipt, of those who submitted comments to be placed in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  Pressure-relieving Equipment
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes he has made to his Department's guidance ref. HSG(95)8 regarding the availability of specialist pressure-relieving equipment. [79912]

  Mr. Hutton
  HSG(95)8 "NHS responsibilities for meeting continuing health care needs" covers the arrangements that health authorities need to make for patients who have continuing health care needs which can be met in hospital, nursing homes or their own homes. The guidance confirms that people in nursing homes may require some regular access to specialist medical, nursing or other community health services, including specialist medical or nursing equipment, but does not specifically list pressure-relieving equipment. There have been no changes to the guidance since it was issued in 1995. In the light of the Health Committee report on the interface between health and social services, there will be a review of continuing health care policy.

  Health Professionals (Salaries)
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the average salary increase for all health professionals in the NHS in each of the last five years, expressed as a percentage. [81059]

  Mr. Denham
  The average salary increase for all health professionals in the National Health Service in each of the last five years is set out in the table.

  Percentage

  Year

  1994–95

  3.0

  1995–96

  2.9

  1996–97

  3.4

  1997–98

  3.4

  1998–99

  4.0

  Notes This is a weighted average for directly employed doctors and dentists, nurses, midwives and health visitors, professions allied to medicine and staff covered by the scientific and professional Whitley Council, using the full increase and including local pay where relevant. It omits the value of increments and other changes in earnings.

  Source Pay Advance letters and annual financial returns of NHS trusts and health authorities

  Body Piercing
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people sought medical help as the
  99
  result of body piercing in each of the past three years for which records are available; and if he will make a statement; [80864]

  (2) what powers a local authority has to revoke the ear piercing registration of a person convicted of a sexual assault; and if he will make a statement; [80863]

  (3) if a person registered for ear piercing is allowed to pierce other parts of the body; and if he will make a statement; [80862]

  (4) what (a) legislation and (b) other regulations apply to those providing (i) ear piercing and (ii) piercing of other parts of the body; and if he will make a statement.[80861]

  Ms Jowell
  Local authorities in London have powers to control ear piercing and cosmetic body piercing businesses by licensing using provisions in the London Local Authorities Act 1991, or by registration and byelaws using provisions in the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1981, depending on which legislation they have adopted. The majority of London local authorities have adopted licensing powers.

  Local authorities outside London have powers to register and make byelaws for ear piercing businesses under the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, but not for cosmetic body piercing businesses.

  Local authorities are empowered to make byelaws or licence conditions for ear piercing businesses related to hygienic and safe practice. Breaches of these byelaws and licence conditions may lead to the cancellation of registration or a licence.

  In addition, under the London Local Authorities Act 1991, local authorities in London may revoke or refuse to grant, renew or transfer a licence, if the individual carrying on the business is not reasonably regarded by the local authority as a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Therefore it is possible that if information about a conviction for a sexual offence came to light, the local authority may decide to revoke or refuse to grant, renew or transfer a licence.

  Following consultation by the Department in 1996 on the regulation of skin piercing, we have decided that primary legislation should be introduced, if parliamentary time allows, to give local authorities outside London powers to regulate cosmetic body piercing businesses. Those authorities are at present able to use general enforcement powers under health and safety at work legislation, should they judge that there is a risk to customers' health and safety. Also, the cosmetic body piercing businesses which are registered for ear piercing under the existing legislation will already be subject to local authority inspection.

  The Department does not have information on the number of people who seek medical help as a result of body piercing and we are not aware of any relevant studies.

  Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times Ministers in his Department met their counterparts in the US Administration between 100
  1 January 1998 and 1 June 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved and the name of the US counterpart. [81078]

  Ms Jowell
  I met the United States Secretary of State for Health, Donna Shalala at the World Health Assembly in Geneva in May 1998.

  Professional Statisticians
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff by grade are employed as professional statisticians in his Department; how many of these staff have been accepted as fast stream by the Civil Service Selection Board; and how many have been granted chartered statistician status by the Royal Statistical Society. [81195]

  Ms Jowell
  Within the Department of Health there are 3 Senior Civil Servants, 28 Integrated Payband 4 (Grade 7) statisticians and 12 fast-stream Assistant Statisticians employed as professional statisticians, all of whom have been recruited via the Civil Service Selection Board1. In addition, the Department employs on a permanent basis Statistical Officers who have statistical qualifications.
  1The answer covers the number of permanent statistically qualified staff working in professional statistician posts in the Department. In addition, there is I Senior Civil Servant who was recognised as a professional statistician by the then Central Statistical Office without the involvement of the Civil Service Selection Board.

  Note:
  The answer excludes staff with professional statistical qualifications working in general administrative posts and staff in regional offices of the National Health Service Executive who may be undertaking some statistical work.

  Iophendylate
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much iophendylate was purchased by the National Health Service in 1998–99. [81620]

  Mr. Hutton
  No iophendylate (Myodil) was purchased by the National Health Service in 1998–99.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when and with whom he expects the Medicines Control Agency to consult about revisions to the proposals in its consultation document MLX 249. [81650]

  Ms Jowell
  We are grateful for all the representations received during the consultation period which ended on 31 January. Having fully considered those representations we will decide whether and what legislation should be placed before Parliament. We have no current plans for further public consultation.

  Dentistry
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has for the long-term future of dentistry in the NHS; [81875]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure a comprehensive NHS dentistry service is available throughout the country; [81874]
  101
  (3) what is the Government's long-term policy on NHS dentistry. [81873]

  Mr. Denham
  These issues are under consideration as part of the strategy for National Health Service Dentistry that we will publish in due course.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what target his Department has set for the number of dentists providing NHS services per 1,000 population. [81865]

  Mr. Denham
  Health authorities are responsible for monitoring the provision of National Health Service dental services in the area. The table shows that on 31 December of each year from 1996 to 1998, there was an increase in the number of dentists providing general dental services per 1,000 population.

  General Dental Service: Number of GDS dentists 1 per 1,000 population at 31 December in England

  Year

  Number

  Per 1,000 population

  1996

  16,341

  0.33

  1997

  16,722

  0.34

  1998

  17,266

  0.35

  1 The number of dentists are a head count not whole time equivalents

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many bids have been received from dentists in Northavon since the launch of his Investing in Dentistry initiative; and how many of these have been successful. [81955]

  Mr. Denham
  No Investing in Dentistry funding requests have been received from Northavon.

  St. George's Hospital (Tooting)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in(a) waiting lists and (b) waiting time for consultation at St. George's Hospital, Tooting, in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [81886]

  Mr. Denham
  At 28 February 1999, 6,464 people were waiting for inpatient treatment at St. George's Healthcare National Health Service Trust, a reduction of 1,668 since 31 March 1998. At 31 December 1998, 2,195 people had been waiting 13 weeks or more for a first outpatient appointment there, an increase of 905 since 31 March 1998.

  Osteoporosis
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish clinical guidelines on osteoporosis prevention and treatment. [81884]

  Ms Jowell
  The Royal College of Physicians published "Osteoporosis: clinical guidelines for prevention and treatment" on 12 March 1999. Copies of the guidelines are available direct from the Royal College.

  Ongar War Memorial Hospital
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the closure of Ongar War Memorial Hospital. [81871]
  102
  Mr. Denham
  No decision has been made about the future of Ongar War Memorial Hospital. The health authority has not yet provided all the information necessary to enable Ministers to take a decision on the long-term future of the hospital.

  We understand that the National Health Service trust may be considering closing the hospital on health and safety grounds. This is a matter which is the responsibility of the trust.

  Treatment Costs
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will estimate the cost to the National Health Service of treating people who have been injured by animals in each of the last three years; [81775]

  (2) if he will introduce measures to enable those in charge of animals which have caused injuries requiring health service treatment to be charged for that treatment. [81774]

  Mr. Denham
  Central information is collected annually on the cost of treatments and procedures for services undertaken by National Health Services trusts. These costs are not differentiated between the cause of the treatment, for example whether the treatment was required as a result of animals, a fall etc., and therefore we are unable to estimate the costs of services in this way. There are no plans to introduce charges to owners for the cost of treating people injured by their animals.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many existing staff from his Department will be transferred to the Food Standards Agency. [82271]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 29 March 1999,Official Report, column 500.

DEFENCE

  Second World War Airmen
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will release the information held by his Department on the number of airmen during the Second World War who were classified as lacking moral fibre; and if he will take steps to remove this classification from service records. [81341]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Aircrews in the Second World War included personnel from all three Services, although the Royal Air Force were the only Service to use the classification of "lacking moral fibre". Cases where aircrew had significant psychological problems were dealt with by administrative procedures and fell into two categories; those which were seen as having medical causes, and those where the determination and reliability of the airman in the face of danger were doubted. It was the latter category that were actually classed as "lacking moral fibre".

  The Royal Air Force has no central record of officers/airmen classified as "lacking moral fibre" during World War H and this information could be obtained only

  103
  through a manual check of individual personnel files. Whilst it might be possible to obtain background information on officers categorised as "lacking moral fibre", airmen's personal files will have been destroyed, and only a basic Record of Service retained. It would not therefore be possible to discover any background information on the reasons behind any "lack of moral fibre" annotation recorded on an individual airman's record.

  Service Records are amended only on those rare occasions when there is irrefutable evidence that inaccurate information has been entered. The Ministry of Defence therefore has no plans to review those cases categorised as "lacking moral fibre" during World War II, or to remove this classification from those airmen's individual records which have survived.

  Landmines
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has obtained on the laying of anti-personnel landmines and anti-tank mines by the Yugoslav army in Kosovo. [81994]

  Mr. George Robertson
  There is evidence that both anti-tank mines and anti-personnel mines have been employed by the Yugoslav army in Kosovo since April of last year. While our information is incomplete, we believe that in central and south west Kosovo, where many of the minefields are laid, these are small scale. Along the Albanian and Macedonian borders with Kosovo, there is evidence of more conventional large scale minefields.

  Munitions (Kosovo)
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what munitions are being used by the RAF in the Kosovo campaign that employ a form of sub-munition designed to impede damage repair. [82149]

  Mr. George Robertson
  None.

  War Cabinet
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since 24 March the Chiefs of Staff have accompanied the Chief of the Defence Staff to meetings of the War Cabinet. [81665]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 22 April 1999]: It is established practice under Section 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to proceedings of Cabinet and Cabinet Committees. However, as I have made clear publicly on a number of occasions, we are not at war with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. There is therefore no War Cabinet. The Prime Minister regularly discusses the situation in Kosovo with his Ministerial colleagues.

  Vinca Institute
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received of the presence of nuclear material at the Vinca Institute near Belgrade. [82349]
  104
  Mr. George Robertson
  Any nuclear material held at the Vinca Nuclear Research Institute is held under the terms of the Safeguards Agreement between Yugoslavia and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and is monitored by its inspectors.

  Vegetarians
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to cater for those requiring vegetarian food when involved in front-line activities. [81909]

  Mr. Spellar
  Where fresh rations are supplied by military catering staff, a vegetarian choice is available on the daily menu for all meals. In the case of Operational Ration Packs, work has begun to identify the requirement to provide a vegetarian option.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Knitting Machine Operators
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for the future of the National Training Centre for Knitting Machine Mechanics and Technicians at North Warwickshire and Hinckley College. [81738]

  Mr. Mudie
  Having reviewed their mix of training provision, I understand that the college authorities have decided to close the knitting technician facility. That is a business decision for them to take and is not a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am advised that there are a number of other institutions offering technician training for the knitting industry. This may well have been a factor in the decision to close the centre at North Warwickshire and Hinckley College.

  I can assure my hon. Friend that the prospective National Training Organisation for the Textiles industry—National Textiles Training Organisation—is very active in linking with education institutions to ensure the availability of an appropriate level of training facilities to meet the needs of the industry.

  FE Colleges
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that colleges of further education are not penalised financially as a result of the transfer of responsibility for funding part-time higher education courses in further education colleges from the Further Education Funding Council to the Higher Education Funding Council. [81872]

  Mr. Mudie
  The funding to transfer from FEFC to HEFCE from 1999–2000 has been calculated based on detailed information from the colleges concerned. These colleges were invited to confirm that the proposed funding transfer is appropriate. HEFCE and FEFC jointly commissioned research, which has shown that HEFCE will fund the transferred provision at, at least, the same level as applies now in FE.

  A-levels (Maths and Science)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he has taken to
  105
  monitor standards in A-level subjects in (a) mathematics, (b) physics, (c) chemistry and (d) other science subjects since May 1997. [81853]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Government are committed to ensuring that standards in all public examinations are rigorously maintained. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority carries out a rolling programme of reviews to ensure that examination demand and grade standards are maintained in all major subjects. The first such review, published in 1996, confirmed that standards in A-level mathematics and chemistry remained broadly comparable between 1975 and 1995. The second review, published in March this year, confirmed that standards in A-level physics remained broadly comparable between 1976 and 1996. The A-level biology review is due to be published next year. Specific recommendations from the reviews for ensuring that standards continue to be maintained—and where necessary are strengthened—are being incorporated in the revised A-level criteria, which will underpin the new syllabuses to be introduced from September 2000.

  Further Education Funding Council
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the value was of the(a) funds administered by the Further Education Funding Council and (b) overheads of the Further Education Funding Council in the last year for which figures are available. [81881]

  Mr. Mudie
  In 1998–99, the value of the funds administered by the FEFC were £3,112,265,976 and the overheads of the FEFC were £22,610,000.

  Early Years Education
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress he has made in establishing an early years learning curriculum. [81989]

  Ms Hodge
  We have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) to review the existing Desirable Outcomes for Children's Learning on Entering Compulsory Education. The QCA published a consultation paper in February and the consultation closes on 30 April.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 23 March 1999,Official Report, columns 200–01, when he expects to be able to publish the detailed breakdown of the expected expenditure on early years education in 1998–99. [82014]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 26 April 1999]: Expenditure
  plans—including estimated outturn expenditure for 1998–99—were published in the Departmental Report of the department for Education and Employment and Office for Standards in Education (Cm 4202) in March 1999. These included the following estimates of outturn expenditure on early years education and childcare in 1998–99:

  £ million

  National Childcare Strategy

  27

  Funding from the windfall tax for the National Childcare Strategy

  25

  Under fives

  137

  Local authority expenditure on under fives education

  1,692

  Sure Start

  3

  New Deal (Pilot Projects)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of New Deal pilot projects include private sector involvement. [82303]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Private sector organisations lead delivery in 10 (36 per cent.) of the 28 pilots for the New Deal for long term unemployed people aged 25 or over and five (42 per cent.) of the 12 Personal Adviser Service pilot projects and three (12 per cent.) of the 24 Innovative schemes under the New Deal for the Disabled. Private sector organisations may also be involved in New Deal pilots as sub-contractors.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the next stage of Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will come into force; and if he will make a statement. [82542]

  Ms Hodge
  The next stage of Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will come into force on 1 October. Service providers will then have to take reasonable steps to change practices, policies or procedures which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service; provide auxiliary aids or services which would make it easier for, or enable, disabled people to use a service; and overcome physical features which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service, by providing the service by a reasonable alternative means.

  I have placed in the Library copies of the report on the public consultation exercise that the Government held jointly with the National Disability Council from 30 July 1998 to 13 November 1998, as well as copies of the Regulatory Impact Assessment. I have also laid supporting regulations and a revised Code of Practice, which describes the current and new duties and gives examples of good practice. It also helps service providers and disabled people to understand the law. Subject to the completion of the relevant Parliamentary procedures, we aim to publish the Code, and other information about the Act, at the end of June. This represents significant progress in our programme to tackle discrimination against disabled people.

  The final phase of the later rights in Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act is scheduled to come into force in 2004. As a matter of good practice, service providers should be considering now what steps to take in respect of removing or altering or providing a means of avoiding physical obstacles which prevent access to their services.

  The duty of reasonable adjustment on trade organisations will also come into force on 1 October. They will then have to take reasonable steps to prevent any arrangements they make placing a disabled member or applicant at a substantial disadvantage compared with people who are not disabled. I have laid a separate Code of Practice for trade organisations, which takes into account the brief guidance on trade organisations currently in the Employment Code of Practice. I have also placed in the Library copies of the associated Regulatory Impact Assessment and Consultation Report. Supporting regulations are not necessary.

  New Deal for Partners of Unemployed People
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the national launch of the New Deal for Partners of Unemployed People. [82543]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The New Deal for Partners of Unemployed People was launched today. It offers partners of people who have been receiving Jobseekers' Allowance for six months or more, the opportunity, on a voluntary basis, to receive guidance and advice on job search and training from specialist Employment Service Personal Advisers.

  The national programme will build on the experience gained by pathfinder districts—Cardiff, Leeds and Tayside—which started on 8 February.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Racial Hatred
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) reports, (b) investigations and (c) arrests there were of crimes committed in the areas covered by (i) Hammersmith and (ii) Fulham police stations for the offence of incitement to racial hatred for the years (a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996. [81684]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that such information as to the offence of incitement to racial hatred was not identifiable from other collected data before the introduction of the Metropolitan Police crime reporting computer system on 30 July 1996 at Hammersmith Police Station and 27 August 1996 at Fulham Police Station. No cases of incitement to racial hatred were reported or investigated, and no arrests were made, in the period from 30 July 1996 to end December 1996 at Hammersmith and, during the period 27 August 1996 to end December 1996, at Fulham.

  IND Offices, Croydon
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time recorded by the IND offices in Croydon for response to inquiries made to them by(a) telephone and (b) in writing for the months of (i) January, (ii) February and (iii) March. [81683]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In respect of telephone inquiries, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) on 29 March 1999,Official Report, column 537. The latest position is that the average time a caller waits in the queue has reduced to two minutes and twenty seconds. In respect of written inquiries for January, February and March, eighty four per cent. of written inquiries are responded to within 20 working days, excluding correspondence related to casework and applications.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the outcome of the review of the Probation Service's recruitment needs; and if he will publish the results. [81954]
  108
  Mr. George Howarth
  The work force planning survey of the Probation Service has not yet been completed. The data collected are currently being analysed, and it is hoped that a final report will be ready by August. The findings will be made available to Probation Service managers and probation committees.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the ergonomic assessment of the Crams IT system currently being installed by the Probation Service. [81978]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The ergonomic assessment of Case Record Administration and Management System (CRAMS) has been sent to all Chief Probation Officers; and UNISON and the National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO) have sent copies to their branch officers. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has had made of the likely change in the number of juveniles sentenced to custody during the next five years. [81979]

  Mr. Boateng
  Projections have been made of the number of young prisoners who it is expected will be either serving a custodial sentence or held on remand in all forms of secure accommodation. The projections are based on two possible scenarios:

  The assumption that the use of custody by the courts increases by 0.6 per cent. per year for males and 1 per cent. for females, which is in line with recent trends; and the assumption that, in addition to 1, there is an increase in average sentence length of 1.5 per cent. per year for males and 2 per cent. for females.

  The tables also allow for seasonal variations in each year.

  Expected populations of prisoners aged under 18

  Remand

  Sentenced

  Assumption 1

  1998–19991

  900

  1,800

  1999–2000

  1,000

  1,700

  2000–2001

  1,000

  1,800

  2001–2002

  800

  2,000

  2002–2002

  700

  2,100

  2003–2004

  700

  2,100

  2004–2005

  700

  2,200

  Assumption 2

  1998–19991

  900

  1,800

  1999–2000

  1,000

  1,900

  2000–2001

  1,100

  2,100

  2001–2002

  900

  2,400

  2002–2003

  800

  2,400

  2003–2004

  800

  2,600

  2004–2005

  800

  2,700

  1Provisional

  Actual outcomes will depend on the decisions of the courts. Other scenarios are possible. For further information on the methodology of the projections see "Projections of Long-Term Trends in the Prison Population to 2006", Home Office Statistical Bulletin 1/99, copies of which are in the Library.
  109
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for housing juveniles within the Prison Service estate. [81976]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The initial composition of the Prison Service's new, distinct juvenile estate has now been finalised, following consultation with the Youth Justice Board. It will consist of the following establishments: Ashfield; Aylesbury; Brinsford; Castington; Feltham; Hollesley Bay; Huntercombe; Lancaster Farms; Onley; Portland; Stoke Heath; Thorn Cross; Werrington; and Wetherby. These establishments will be either juvenile-only or will contain juvenile units.

  The Prison Service also has a strategy for securing further improvements to the estate over the next three years.

  These changes will mean that all 15 to 17 year old boys will be held in separate, dedicated accommodation (other than in exceptional circumstances) in readiness for the introduction of the Detention and Training Order in April 2000.

  In relation to 15–17 year old girls, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Lesley) on 8 March 1999, Official Report, columns 28–29.

  Parole
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken to process parole applications. [81959]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The parole timetable for determinate sentenced prisoners specifies that the review process should be complete, and the result notified to the prisoner, within 24 weeks of the scheduled start date for the review.

  Over the past four quarters, the average time taken is as follows:

  weeks

  Average time taken to process reviews

  April 1998–June 1998

  24.7

  July 1998–September 1998

  24.0

  October 1998–December 1998

  24.0

  January 1999–March 1999

  22.1

  Young Offender Teams
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the(a) salaries, (b) leave entitlements and (c) other conditions of service for (i) police, (ii) health, (iii) education, (iv) probation and (v) social services members of young offender teams. [81958]

  Mr. Boateng
  The salaries, leave entitlements and other conditions of service of members of youth offending teams, from whichever agency they are drawn, are governed by the arrangements applying to each member's employing agency. They will vary between agencies and, in some aspects, between different parts of England and Wales, and they will vary according to the rank or grade 110
  and seniority of individual youth offending team members and, in respect of education and health staff, according to the occupational group nominated by chief education officers and health authorities as team members. It will be for youth offending team managers to manage the teams effectively, ensuring that the diversity of their membership contributes to, and does not impede, good multi-agency working.

  Drug-related Crime
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of(a) the number of drug users who are criminally active and (b) the cost of drug-related crime. [81982]

  Mr. George Howarth
  As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 29 April 1998,Official Report, column 136, the information requested on criminally active drug users is not available. A report was published last year of research carried out on behalf of the Home Office by the University of Cambridge, which shed light on the links between drugs and crime. Further work is currently being conducted within this programme. The results of this additional research will be published later this year.

  At present there are no estimates of the costs of drug-related crime. However, the Home Office is currently working to develop, within the context of the crime reduction programme, an estimate of the cost of crime.

  Young Offenders Institutions
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to build additional young offenders' institutions within Greater London. [81977]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In 1998, the Prison Service acquired a site adjacent to Belmarsh prison in order to obtain planning permission to build another prison to serve the London area. It is the intention that the new prison should include a young offender institution function. Preliminary discussions have been held with the local planning authority, but a formal planning application has yet to be submitted.

  Home Detention Curfews
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the prisoners released on home detention curfew on or since 28 January have(a) been returned to custody and (b) committed offences whilst on curfew. [81948]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Between 28 January and 21 April, 3,953 offenders have been made subject to home detention curfew. In the same period, 166 curfewees have had their licences revoked by the Secretary of State and 140 have been returned to custody.

  Home Office Circular 1/1999 requires the police to inform the Prison Service parole unit when a curfewee is charged with an offence. Between 28 January and 21 April, the parole unit has been notified of 40 such cases. As a result, 26 curfewees have had their licences revoked immediately under Section 38A(1) or Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. In the remaining

  111
  14 cases, either the police or the probation service have been asked to pursue breach action through the courts under section 38(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what difficulties there have been with the equipment used to enforce home detention curfews, with particular reference to multi-storey dwellings, hostels and farms. [81953]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In a small number of cases, it was initially difficult to set curfew ranges for premises in multiple occupation or of unusual shape or size; but the contractors have been able to meet these problems by installing additional monitoring equipment, re-calibrating curfew ranges or restricting the curfewee to certain areas of the property.

  Any address that is not technically suitable for monitoring will be reported to the Parole Unit of the Prison Service, which will consider whether to recall the offender to prison. To date, there have been no such reports.

  Tooting and Wandsworth Police Stations
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of stop and search have been recorded at(a) Tooting and (b) Wandsworth police stations; and how many of these have led to arrests in each of the last three years. [81889]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that Wandsworth and Tooting police stations are part of Wandsworth Division and it is not possible to break down the figures below divisional level. He has provided the following information:

  Wandsworth Division

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Stop and Searches

  5,489

  5,784

  4,130

  Arrests Resulting

  522

  551

  386

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many ethnic minority police officers are currently stationed at(a) Tooting and (b) Wandsworth police stations. [81891]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that, on 23 April 1999, there were four police officers from visible ethnic minorities stationed at Tooting Police Station and seven at Wandsworth Police Station.

  European Elections (Voter Eligibility)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the eligibility of those overseas voters eligible to vote in the United Kingdom general elections to vote in the forthcoming European Parliament election. [81788]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, as amended, an overseas elector registered to vote at a parliamentary election is entitled to vote at an European Parliamentary election.

  European Elections (Gibraltar)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the eligibility of holders of Gibraltarian passports to stand as candidates for the European Parliament if they are(a) residents of Gibraltar and (b) resident in the United Kingdom. [81787]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, as amended, the holder of a Gibraltarian passport, as a citizen of the Commonwealth, is eligible in the same way as a United Kingdom citizen to stand as a candidate for election to the European Parliament wherever he or she is resident.

  European Elections (Commonwealth Citizens)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the eligibility of citizens of Commonwealth countries, other than United Kingdom citizens, who are resident in the United Kingdom and eligible to stand as candidates for the Parliament of the United Kingdom, to stand for election to the European Parliament. [81786]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I can confirm that, under the European Parliamentary Elections Act, 1978, as amended, a Commonwealth citizen is eligible in the same way as a United Kingdom citizen to stand as a candidate for election to the European Parliament wherever he or she is resident.

  Macpherson Report
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report of the inquiry into the leaking of the Macpherson report. [81862]

  Mr. Straw
  I hope to receive the report shortly.

  Telephone Services
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions the telephone preference scheme and the access overload control scheme have been used in each of the last 20 years; which categories of user were disconnected in each case; and if he will make a statement. [82445]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Since 1987, the preference scheme has been activated by British Telecom, in order to relieve congestion on the network, or to overcome other network problems, on the following occasions:

  August 1987: Hungerford

  October 1987: South East England

  December 1988: Lockerbie

  January 1990: Southern England

  December 1990: Midlands

  February 1993: Welford upon Avon

  June 1993: Chadford.

  On each occasion the public telephone service was restricted to essential users in the emergency services,

  113
  central and local government, public call boxes and certain categories of people at risk, such as on kidney dialysis machines or in residential homes which have difficulties of access. Normal service was restored as soon as possible. Records prior to 1987 are no longer available.

  The access overload control scheme was established in November 1989. The scheme has been activated on the following occasions:

  December 1989: M6 Motorway

  June 1990: Knebworth (invoked in error)

  April 1997: Aintree

  April 1997: Crewe

  April 1997: Gatwick

  April 1997: Leeds.

  Priority was given, in each case, to the emergency services and other essential users. The general public continued to have access to the network, limited at times by the number of essential user calls being made.

  Public Pay Telephones (Prostitutes Cards)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consultation he has undertaken on developing new plans to combat the advertising of prostitutes in public pay telephones; and if he will make a statement; [82450]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce new measures to combat the advertising of prostitutes in public pay telephones; and if he will make a statement. [82449]

  Mr. George Howarth
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Home Department said, in his reply to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) on 22 April 1999,Official Report, column 669, the Home Office hopes to publish its consultation paper on new measures to tackle the problem of prostitutes' cards in telephone kiosks next month. The consultation paper will look at options for changing the law to enable those who put cards in telephone kiosks to be dealt with more effectively.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Electronic Locks
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how much the electronic locks provided under the works vote for the House of Commons areas of the Parliamentary Estate cost; how many have been authorised for fitting; and if he will make a statement. [81992]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  I understand that Serjeant at Arms wrote to my hon. Friend in December 1998 setting out the information on this subject as it stood at the time. I have asked the Serjeant at Arms to provide my hon. Friend with details of the current position and to place a copy of the letter in the Library.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what decision he has made about the new national body for tourism in England. [82544]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  On 14 December 1998 we announced in A New Cultural Framework that we would establish a new streamlined, more strategic body to support tourism in England. An Implementation Team was set up in January, supported by an Advisory Group representing the industry. We have now considered its report, which was received on 9 April and of which a copy has been placed today in the Libraries of both Houses. I am now able to announce more fully the details of the framework within which the new arrangements will operate under the leadership of a Chairman, whom I will shortly appoint.

  The new body will be known as the English Tourism Council (ETC). Its prime role will be to provide strategic leadership to drive delivery of the national tourism strategy. It will have a parallel function as a centre of excellence supporting the industry in five key areas: research, in particular work on emerging markets and sectors; quality, including work on the accommodation schemes and also attractions and seaside resorts; overseeing systems for data collection and analysis; championing sustainable tourism, and wider access; and spreading news of innovative ideas and examples of best practice in all these areas of work.

  There will be a significant switch of funding so that most is available for tourism in the regions and I want to see a new system for its distribution. This will enable a greater proportion of the strategy to be delivered at regional level and will secure enhanced benefits for tourism in the regions. The money will continue to be passed via the ETC to the Regional Tourist Boards (RTBs), except in the case of London where the Department will pass it directly to the Mayor of London, while recommending that the London Tourist Board is the most appropriate partner for delivery of the national strategy.

  We are currently considering applications received for the post of Chairman of the ETC, whom we will announce as soon as a decision has been made. At present the Board consists of six other members and we intend to increase that to eight. Decisions on staffing will be for the Chairman and Chief Executive, but are likely to lead to a different structure with higher skilled staff and a new mode of working. The ETC is likely to relocate within Thames Tower, Hammersmith but, in due course or if the funds allocated for its transition allow, the organisation may decide to move to new premises.

  Once the new Chairman and Chief Executive are in place, the ETC will be able to finalise its Strategic Action Plan and the Planning and Bidding Guidance for the Regional Tourist Boards on regional funding. We expect this to be possible by July, at which stage there will be a public launch of the new national body for tourism in England, one that has a far clearer and more focused remit than before and will be better equipped to maximise England's tourism interests. In the meantime, I am

  115
  grateful to the current Chairman, Board members and staff at ETB who continue to provide a high standard of support for this vital industry.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Professional Statisticians
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff by grade are employed as professional statisticians in his Department; how many of these staff have been accepted as fast stream by the Civil Service Selection Board; and how many have been granted chartered statistician status by the Royal Statistical Society. [81200]

  Mr. Morley
  Statistical work is undertaken by a range of specialisms including Economists. Within this Department there are 2 Senior Civil Servants, 2 Grade 6s, 11 Grade 7s and 6 Assistant Statisticians employed as "professional" Statisticians, all of whom have been recruited via CSSB. In addition our Department employs 2 Statistical Officers.

  Two officers have applied for and been granted chartered statistician status.

  Silk Stream Flood Scheme
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the environmental assessment of the Silk Stream flood alleviation scheme to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [81748]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that following consultation on the Scoping Report, the Environment Agency will be undertaking an environmental assessment of the Silk Stream flood alleviation scheme with a view to publishing an Environmental Statement for formal consultation in August 2000.

  Haddock
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the 1999 haddock quota tonnage allocated to the United Kingdom and the total haddock quota tonnage available to the EU within EU and external waters. [81854]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Stock

  EU quota (tonnes)

  UK quota

  EU waters

  Area IIa, North Sea

  69,680

  157,045

  Skagerrak and Kattegat, Area IIIb, c, d

  3,675

  0

  Area Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  19,000

  15,110

  Area VII, VIII, IX, X CECAF 34.1.1

  26,990

  4,590

  External waters

  Faroese zone

  500

  2430

  Norwegian zone (north of 62°N)

  1,700

  1,118

  Norwegian zone (south of 62°N)

  930

  0

  Total

  122,475

  78,293

  1Of which no more than 50,000 tonnes may be fished in the Norwegian zone

  2 EU quota in Faroese waters is for cod and haddock combined and is not split for each species

  Crop Sub-species
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the arrangements for the licensing of crop sub-species. [82047]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are no licensing arrangements for crop sub species.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Prosecutions (Hammersmith and Fulham)
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Attorney-General how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there have been for crimes committed in the areas covered by (i) Hammersmith and (ii) Fulham police stations for the years (a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996. [81685]

  Kate Hoey
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the Metropolitan police does not collect prosecution or conviction data for individual divisions. They are, however, able to provide data which combine persons charged, summonsed and those receiving adult cautions:

  Number

  Fulham Division

  1994

  998

  1995

  1,233

  1996

  1,049

  Hammersmith Division

  1994

  1,648

  1995

  1,747

  1996

  1,372

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Consultations (Postal Costs)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will pay the postal costs of voluntary bodies and registered charities requested to respond to Government consultation documents; and if she will make a statement. [80915]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  When voluntary bodies and registered charities are invited to respond to a consultation document, it is not standard practice to automatically meet the postal costs incurred. However, any individual request for reimbursement would be considered on its merit. Where a voluntary organisation receives a grant from the Department towards its central administration costs, it is not unreasonable to expect postal costs in responding to consultation documents to be met from that grant.

  Lee Clegg (Trial Costs)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost to her Department of the original trial of Lee Clegg in 1993. [81125]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 April 19991 It would be possible to answer this question only at disproportionate cost.

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will list for the week ended Saturday 17 April the number of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many involved(a) Loyalist and (b) Republican groups; [81740]

  (2) if she will list for the week ended Saturday 17 April the number of (a) punishment beatings and (b) punishment shootings which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many in each category were committed by (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [81741]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of security incidents during the period 11 April-17 April 1999 are as shown:

  Shooting incidents: 1

  Bombing incidents: 2.

  The number of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks during the period are as follows:

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Assaults

  0

  1

  Shootings

  0

  1

  Total

  0

  2

  Notes

  1. Figures may be subject to minor amendment.

  2. The shooting and bombing incidents cannot as yet be firmly attributed to a grouping.

  Advance Factories
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many advance factories have been built in Northern Ireland in each of the last two years and in which constituencies; and if she will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the provision of advance factories in Northern Ireland. [82000]

  Number of staff in Departments by Ethnic Groups 1 at 1 April 1998

  Department

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other ethnic groups

  Total with known ethnic origin

  Advisory, Concilliation and Arbitration Service

  506

  23

  15

  2—

  550

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  6,980

  183

  173

  42

  7,378

  Cabinet Office

  1,271

  56

  33

  9

  1,369

  Charity Commission

  483

  36

  31

  2—

  550

  Crown Prosecution Service

  4,522

  193

  195

  22

  4,932

  Culture, Media and Sport

  301

  18

  13

  2—

  330

  Customs and Excise

  20,397

  406

  954

  125

  21,882

  Defence

  64,247

  479

  664

  169

  65,559

  Education and Employment

  18,558

  949

  1,181

  124

  20,812

  Ofsted

  161

  7

  7

  2—

  180

  Environment, Transport and the Regions

  11,316

  281

  404

  172

  12,173

  Export Credit Guarantee Department

  245

  13

  29

  7

  294

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  4,187

  87

  76

  28

  4,378

  Friendly Societies, Registry of

  98

  16

  17

  2—

  130

  Government Actuary

  21

  2—

  2—

  0

  20

  Health

  3,734

  326

  210

  59

  4,329

  Health and Safety

  3,414

  75

  78

  25

  3,592

  HM Prison Service

  32,778

  577

  390

  128

  33,873

  Home Office

  8,021

  421

  620

  97

  9,159

  Information, Central Office of

  245

  16

  7

  2—

  270

  Inland Revenue

  51,557

  972

  2,132

  174

  54,835

  International Development

  714

  35

  27

  6

  782

  118
  Mr. Ingram
  The Industrial Development Board (IDB) build one advance factory in 1998–99. This is a high-tech unit of 5,400 sq m and is located at Duncairn Gardens in the North Belfast Constituency. IDB built no advance factories in 1997–98, but did build one specialised call centre of 2,800 sq m on a speculative basis at Springvale Business Park in the West Belfast Constituency.

  Government policy is to reduce to a minimum IDB's stock of advance factories. Recent project experience has shown that IDB-led construction programmes can meet the requirements of the most demanding inward investors' timetables. Furthermore, there is an increased demand for bespoke factories. Flexibility to provide advance units will, none the less, be retained where such action is considered essential in attracting investment to particular disadvantaged areas.

CABINET OFFICE

  Local Government Elections
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what discussions he(a) has had and (b) plans to have with the right hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on the introduction of proportional representation for local government elections. [81974]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I have had no such discussions and have no current plans to have any.

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Make-up)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the ethnic make-up was of civil servants in each Department on 1 April. [81934]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Information about the ethnic origin of civil servants is collected through voluntary, confidential questionnaires. Civil Service personnel statistics are collated and published annually for staff in post at 1 April by the Cabinet Office. The latest information, which is shown in the table, is for 1 April 1998.
  119

  Number of staff in Departments by Ethnic Groups 1 at 1 April 1998

  Department

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other ethnic groups

  Total with known ethnic origin

  Intervention Board

  774

  22

  40

  5

  841

  Land Registry

  7,500

  68

  295

  21

  2,884

  Legal Secretariat

  6

  2—

  0

  0

  10

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  8,922

  462

  405

  66

  9,855

  National Investment and Loans Office

  22

  2—

  2—

  2—

  30

  National Savings

  4,217

  11

  13

  2—

  4,240

  National Statistics, Office for

  2,798

  76

  72

  20

  2,966

  Northern Ireland Office

  68

  13

  5

  0

  86

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  203

  10

  16

  0

  229

  Office Of Fair Trading

  198

  22

  44

  0

  264

  Office Of Gas Supply

  87

  6

  7

  2—

  100

  Office Of the National Lottery

  21

  2—

  2—

  0

  30

  Office of Rail Regulator

  113

  6

  2—

  0

  120

  Ordnance Survey

  1,511

  2—

  10

  6

  1,570

  Public Record Office

  80

  6

  2—

  2—

  90

  Royal Mint

  361

  2—

  2—

  0

  361

  Scottish Office

  3,118

  2—

  10

  0

  3,128

  Other Scottish Departments

  4,109

  6

  8

  2—

  4,130

  Security and Intelligence Services

  4,701

  6

  6

  2—

  4,720

  Serious Fraud Office

  120

  17

  15

  0

  152

  Social Security

  73,828

  1,671

  3,059

  377

  78,935

  Trade and Industry

  6,544

  455

  367

  58

  7,424

  Treasury

  686

  45

  50

  8

  789

  Treasury Solicitors Department

  256

  28

  15

  2—

  300

  Welsh Office

  2,101

  2—

  9

  2—

  2,120

  Total

  356,140

  8,117

  11,716

  1,782

  377,755

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

  2In order to preserve confidentiality number withheld and total for department rounded to nearest 10 as there are less than five staff in this group

  Source

  Cabinet Office, Mandate and departmental returns

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many trainees on the New Deal for Young People were employed in(a) Her Majesty's Treasury, (b) the Home Office, (c) the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, (d) the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (e) his Department, (f) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (g) the Department of Health, (h) the Department for International Development, (i) the Lord Chancellor's Department, (j) the Department of Social Security, (k) the Department of Trade and Industry, (l) the Scottish Office (m) the Welsh Office, and (n) the Northern Ireland Office, on 31 January. [82351]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave him on 2 March 1999,Official Report, column 609. Information on the numbers of those employed under the programme for 18 to 24-year-olds as at 31 January is not held centrally. My Department is currently collating figures which it has obtained from Departments showing the position at 1 April. I will write to the hon. Member with these in due course.

TREASURY

  MIRAS
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals are currently in receipt of MIRAS. [70677]
  120
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: There are an estimated 10.6 million single people and married couples with mortgages in receipt of mortgage interest relief. About 10.3 million of these mortgages receive the relief through the MIRAS—mortgage interest relief at source—scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to the average taxpayer of the restriction of MIRAS to 10 per cent. in the 1997 Budget. [70676]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: The average cost to a taxpayer of the restriction of mortgage interest relief to 10 per cent. in the 1997 Budget is estimated to be about £36 in 1998–99.

  Childcare Tax Credit
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount of childcare tax credit which will be claimed as a result of the provisions for the new category of childcare for eight to 14 year olds set out in the Tax Credits Bill; and if this estimate has been included in the Red Book just published. [78293]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 March 1999]: The cost of extending childcare eligible for the childcare tax credit in the Working Families Tax Credit is estimated to be under £5 million in 2000–01, the first full year of the tax credit.

  The estimate was not included in the Budget 99 Red Book as the measure was tabled after the Budget.

  Income Tax (Pensioners)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate how many people over the age of 65 years will have a marginal rate of income tax of(a) nil, (b) 10 per cent., (c) 20 per cent., (d) 23 per cent. and (e) 40 per cent. in (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000; [79359]

  (2) if he will estimate how many pensioners will have a marginal rate of income tax of (a) nil, (b) 10 per cent., (c) 20 per cent., (d) 23 per cent. and (e) 40 per cent. in 1999–2000. [79360]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]: Estimates by marginal rates of income tax are shown in the table.

  Thousand

  Marginal rate (percentage)

  Aged 65 and over 1998–99

  Aged 65 and over 1999–2000

  Pensionable ages 1999–2000

  0

  6,150

  6,150

  7,000

  10

  —

  350

  450

  20

  1,950

  700

  750

  23

  1,050

  1,950

  2,350

  40

  150

  150

  150

  Correspondence
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letters from Ms Sue Owen which were sent to him on 28 January and 22 March. [80651]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A letter in response to Ms Owen's first letter was sent on 22 March 1999. A reply to the second letter has been sent today.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) on 23 March 1999,Official Report, column 201, if he will estimate the number of (a) claimants of housing benefit who are of working age, (b) claimants of the working families tax credit and (c) current claimants of family credit, and the number and percentage of claimants of current family credit and future working families tax credit who also claim housing benefit. [80567]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The available information is contained in the tables:

  Recipients of Family Credit and Housing Benefit in England, May 1998

  Number

  Recipients of Housing Benefit where claimant is aged under 60 years

  2,223,000

  Recipients of Family Credit

  654,000

  Recipients of Family Credit and Housing Benefit

  212,000

  Percentage of Family Credit recipients with Housing Benefit

  32 Per cent.

  Source

  Housing Benefit Management Information System annual enquiry, May 1998

  Family Credit Statistics quarterly enquiry, May 1998

  Estimates for Working Families Tax Credit and Housing Benefit for England, 1999–2000

  Number

  122

  Estimates for Working Families Tax Credit and Housing Benefit for England, 1999–2000

  Number

  Recipients of Working Families Tax Credit

  1,050,000

  Recipients of Working Families Tax Credit and Housing Benefit

  190,000

  Percentage of Working Families Tax Credit recipients with Housing Benefit

  18 per cent.

  PFI Initiative
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the Second Review of the Private Finance Initiative by Sir Malcolm Bates. [79782]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]: I received Sir Malcolm's Review on 22 March. I will respond in due course

  VAT
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on ending VAT on the Bleep Alarm Service; and if he will make a statement. [81368]

  Dawn Primarolo
  One representation has been received recently about VAT on a personal alarm. Personal and other bleep alarms which enable people with disabilities to alert specified people or control centres that they are in distress are already fully relieved from VAT when bought by disabled people and charities which serve their needs.

  Direct Tax Rates
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each of the possible direct tax rates for(a) individuals and (b) companies. [81705]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Rates of tax are set to raise revenue, with due regard to the Government's stated objectives of raising productivity, increasing employment opportunity and building a fairer Society.By April 2000 Income Tax rates will have reduced to 10p, 22p and 40p.
  By April 2000 Corporation Tax rates will have reduced to l0p, 20p and 30p.
  Rates of Capital Gains Tax (CGT) and tax on savings income are 20p and 40p.
  Inheritance Tax has a 40 per cent. rate.
  Rates of tax on dividends are 10p and 32½per cent.

  Levels of personal allowances, higher rates of allowances for pensioners, the new Children's Tax credit, CGT taper relief, capital allowances and Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs) are just some examples of measures which mean that actual tax paid by taxpayers is much lower, and even negative in some cases.

  Married Couples Allowance
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would have been the value to a basic rate taxpayer of the non-aged married couples allowance and the linked allowance in 1990 to 2000 if the allowance had been indexed every year since its introduction in 1990 and given at the basic rate of tax. [81727]
  123
  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is given in the table:

  Indexed level of 1990–91 non-aged married couple's allowance (£)

  Basic rate of income tax (per cent.)

  Value to a basic rate taxpayer (£)

  1990–91

  1,720

  25

  430.00

  1991–92

  1,910

  25

  477.50

  1992–93

  1,990

  25

  497.50

  1993–94

  2,070

  25

  517.50

  1994–95

  2,110

  25

  527.50

  1995–96

  2,160

  25

  540.00

  1996–97

  2,250

  24

  540.50

  1997–98

  2,300

  23

  529.00

  1998–99

  2.390

  23

  549.70

  1999–2000

  2,470

  23

  568.10

  2000–01

  2,510

  22

  552.20

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his Department's policy when(a) conducting legal proceedings and (b) seeking legal advice as to the circumstances in which Queen's Counsel should be instructed; and for each of the last three years (i) on how many occasions his Department instructed Queen's Counsel and (ii) what was the total cost of instructing Queen's Counsel. [81785]

  Ms Hewitt
  In determining the level of counsel to use either for legal proceedings or when seeking legal advice, the Treasury will consider the individual circumstances of each case. They will take into account,inter alia, the importance and sensitivity of the case, the complexity of the law, the weight and complexity of the evidence, and the degree of experience and expertise required before deciding whether to instruct Queen's Counsel or junior counsel.

  The Treasury has instructed Queen's Counsel on four occasions in the last three years—twice in 1996–1997, once in 1997–1998 and once in 1998–1999. The total costs in the first three cases were £6,100; no fee note has yet been received in the latest case.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 April 1999,Official Report, column 425, on the Inland Revenue, if he will list those circumstances referred to where it might become clear after the taxpayer had appealed against a section 19A notice that section 20 was in fact the more appropriate. [82204]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is impossible to provide such a list; circumstances depend on cases, and there is an infinite number of actual and hypothetical cases. If the hon. Member has a specific example in mind I would be happy to respond if he would provide me with the relevant details.

  Taxation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 April 1999,Official Report, column 387, on income tax, how much tax an individual
  124
  who pays a marginal rate of tax of 10 per cent. will have to pay as a result of making a covenanted payment to charity under an existing covenant in place prior to 5 April. [82202]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As has always been the case, covenantors will continue to be liable to pay tax at the basic rate on an amount of their income equal to the amount of the covenanted payment before deduction of tax. This applies whether the covenant existed at 5 April or is entered into after that date.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much new money has been allocated to EU budget subsection B3 established in the first Supplementary Amending Budget (1999/211/EC-0J L81, 26.3.99); and what is the policy of the Government in respect of that. [82233]

  Ms Hewitt
  14.5 million ecus in payment appropriations were added to subsection B3 of the 1998 EC budget in the supplementary amending budget for 1998. These appropriations cover higher than expected payments in 1998 in respect of existing commitments. The Government agreed with this increase simply in order that the Community should be able to meet its existing obligations.

  Advance Pricing Agreement
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the results of the advance pricing agreement consultation process. [82405]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Yes. In a Press Release dated 17 December 1998 comments were invited on draft clauses relating to Advance Pricing Agreements by 31 January 1999 and on a draft Statement of Practice by 31 March 1999. That Press Release stated that the Inland Revenue will provide feedback about the comments received, and that copies of comments will be made available on request.

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of taxpayers who have taken advantage of(a) ESC D15, (b) ESC D16, (c) ESC D22 and (d) ESC D39 in (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94, (iii) 1994–95, (iv) 1995–96, (v) 1996–97, (vi) 1997–98 and (vii) 1998–99. [82406]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Anti-avoidance Rule
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the results of the General Anti-avoidance Rule and Mini-GAAR consultation process. [82404]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor said in a Budget Day Press Release that the General Anti-avoidance Rule (GAAR) for corporate direct tax remains an option for the future if more targeted legislation proves ineffective in dealing with the problem of avoidance, but that the Government would not be proceeding with a GAAR in this Budget or with a mini-GAAR for VAT on
  125
  construction services. The Chancellor has asked Customs to consider a mini-GAAR in the area of the VAT grouping facility.

  The responses to the consultative documents (other than those made confidentially) may be inspected at the head offices of the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce tax relief for tuition fees paid by mature students. [82328]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor announced in the Budget that the national framework for Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs) is to be launched in the year 2000. Under this framework, individuals will be able to obtain 20 per cent. discounts, rather than tax relief, on the first £500 a year of eligible learning which they pay for—with 80 per cent. discounts for certain key courses, including computer literacy. Contributions paid by employers into employees' ILAs will qualify for a deduction from taxable profits and will be tax and NICs free in the hands of their employees, provided employers contribute to the ILAs of their lowest paid workers on similar terms.

  ILAs will replace vocational training relief (VTR), which is currently available to individuals paying for their own vocational training. In the Budget, VTR at the higher rate was withdrawn for payments made on or after 6 April 1999, and will be abolished completely some time in 2000–01.

  There are no plans for ILAs to cover full-time courses or Higher Education tuition fees which are already subsidised by the taxpayer.

  Sports Orders
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise Table C.1 of the Financial Statement and Budget report, March 1998, to take account of the timing of the implementation of the VAT (Sports, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) (No.2) Order 1998. [82310]

  Dawn Primarolo
  When the new order is laid before Parliament, the revenue effects will be included in the equivalent of Table 1B.1 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report March 1999, providing they are non-zero and non-negligible in the relevant years.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what organisations were consulted by Customs and Excise during the drafting of the VAT (Sport, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) (No. 2) Order 1998. [82318]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs have had discussions on the draft Value Added Tax (Sport, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) Order 1999 with the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the English Golf Union, the National Golf Clubs' Advisory Association and the Chartered Institute of Taxation.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to implement the VAT (Sport, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) (No.2) Order 1998. [82317]
  126
  Dawn Primarolo
  H.M. Customs and Excise are considering comments received on the draft Value Added Tax (Sport, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) Order 1999 published on 14 January 1999.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual difference in revenue raised between the VAT (Sport, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) Order 1998 and the VAT (Sport, Sports Competitions and Physical Education (No.2) Order 1998; and if he will make a statement. [82319]

  Dawn Primarolo
  An estimate will be made when an announcement is made about The Value Added Tax (Sport, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) Order 1999.

  Fuel Smuggling
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the sums lost to the Revenue as a consequence of the smuggling of (i) petrol and (ii) diesel fuel into Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic in each quarter for each of the last three years and the current year up to 31 March. [82215]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 April 1999]: The collection of excise duty is the responsibility of HM Customs and Excise. Customs do not have sufficient reliable information on which to base a published estimate for the revenue lost to the Exchequer through such activity.

  New Policies
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new policies were announced by the Economic Secretary in her speech on Financial Exclusion at the Dorchester Hotel; what his policy is on appropriate venues for announcing new policies; and if he will make a statement. [82267]

  Ms Hewitt
  No new policies were announced.

  Self-employed Builders
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce the level of turnover for the 714c Certificate for self-employed builders in the construction industry scheme. [82484]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have no plans to reduce the turnover thresholds which determine whether a self-employed builder is eligible for a gross payment certificate under the new construction industry scheme. The thresholds were established after full consultation with the representative bodies from all sectors of the construction industry, who broadly support them.

SCOTLAND

  School Buildings
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources are being made available for school buildings and refurbishment in Scotland in the current financial year. [80995]
  127
  Mrs. Liddell
  Of the £1.3 billion additional expenditure on education in Scotland over the next three years, £629 million is available for schools. Gross capital resources allocated to authorities for 1999–2000 amount to £377.3 million to cover all their non-housing capital programmes. Within these programmes, priority will be given to improving and replacing school buildings, consistent with the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review. In addition, £26.7 million is available directly under the New Deal for Schools.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  One-stop Clinics
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many one-stop NHS clinics are currently operating in Scotland. [81004]

  Mr. Galbraith
  There are now over 80 one-stop clinics in Scotland offering help for a wide range of worrying conditions.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to which Minister of the Crown an hon. Member should direct a question relating to the disposal of nuclear waste in England, originating from Coulport or Faslane and currently subject to his authorisation, after 1 July. [81005]

  Mr. Dewar
  Disposals of waste from Ministry of Defence premises are subject to letters of agreement between the regulator and the applicant. These will remain matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. More generally, matters relating to the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 will be for the First Minister.

  Haulage Industry
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the haulage industry in Scotland to discuss the state of the industry. [81006]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland met representatives of the haulage industry and unions on Thursday 8 April to discuss the state of the industry.

  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the economic consequences for Scotland of the recent rise in taxes affecting the road haulage industry. [81007]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets regularly with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and discusses with him a range of issues which affect Scotland.

  Drug Misuse Education
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the provision of drug misuse education in Scottish schools. [81008]
  128
  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government provide extensive advice and support to schools on drug education within the curriculum; our recently published drugs strategy `Tackling drugs in Scotland: Action in Partnership' will ensure that this reaches every pupil.

  Ferry Fares
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings he has had with representatives of Caledonian MacBrayne to discuss this year's increases in ferry fares. [81009]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I met with the Chairman and Managing Director of Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. on 20 October 1998 to discuss a number of matters, including the company's proposals on the level of fares increase. In November last year CalMac announced its fares increase for 1999–2000 of, on average, 2.7 per cent. This took effect in April and represents the lowest network-wide increase for 10 years.

  Road Fuel Duty
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the increase in road fuel duty on the Scottish economy. [81010]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Road fuel duty is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  The changes are part of a package of measures outlined in the Chancellor's recent Budget designed to create a climate of sustainable economic growth and long-term investment in business, both in Scotland and in the UK as a whole.

  We are conscious that road fuel prices can be higher in remote rural areas. I have brought that difference in price to the attention of the Office of Fair Trading, who are currently investigating the matter. Last year the Chancellor provided £13.5 million over three years to provide for a Rural Transport Fund to extend the range of public transport services in rural communities. The fund will now be worth more than £14 million in the three years from 1998–99, to support better public transport in rural areas of Scotland and to help rural petrol stations meet the costs of tank replacement. The Chancellor also announced a reduction by £55 to £100 in Vehicle Excise Duty for smaller cars.

  Licensing Laws
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the liberalisation of the licensing laws in Scotland in the 1970s on the nation's health, crime levels and quality of life. [81011]

  Mr. McLeish
  Available research suggests that the percentage of the population Consuming alcohol in Scotland has not altered significantly since the introduction of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. However, the Government's White Paper on Public Health, "Towards a Healthier Scotland", published in February identified an upward trend in excessive drinking among adults and young people. The Government's crime strategy document, "A Safer Scotland, Tackling Crime and Its Causes" recognised the need to explore the links between anti-social
  129
  behaviour, crime and alcohol and the adverse health effects of alcohol misuse within the context of a new national strategy on alcohol. This will be developed and implemented by the newly formed Scottish advisory committee on alcohol misuse.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Freight Cargo (Prestwick)
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will assess the economic benefit to Ayrshire of freight cargo transported from Glasgow Prestwick Airport. [81014]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The growth in freight cargo traffic at Glasgow Prestwick Airport in recent years has been impressive. The airport now handles more freight tonnage from wide-bodied freighter traffic than any other airport in the UK. The current freight services link Scotland with major points around the globe thus providing Scottish industries with direct, fast air links for import and export.

  Modern Apprenticeship Scheme
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed expansion of the modern apprenticeship scheme. [81016]

  Mr. Macdonald
  We are well on the way to meeting the target of 15,000 Modern Apprenticeships by 2002 which was set in the Lifelong Learning Paper, "Opportunity Scotland". There are now 10,500 Modern Apprentices training, and 67 industry-designed frameworks in Scotland. Modern Apprenticeships will make an important contribution to raising skills in the work force.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the rate of job losses in Scotland in the current year. [81017]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The latest official figures on the number of employee jobs in Scotland are available from the Civilian Workforce Jobs Series for the period to December 1998. Seasonally adjusted data show that the number of employee jobs has increased by 38,000 between June 1997 and December 1998.

  From 1 July 1999, economic development will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he has taken to ensure that voluntary organisations receive funding to enable them to continue the provision of services. [81018]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The importance of voluntary organisations in helping to deliver services is already recognised in the high level of funding which is provided by the Government. Scottish Office funding for the sector totals nearly £283 million a year, with £23 million in direct aid and a further £260 million provided through 130
  other funded agencies. These funds support organisations working in the fields of social welfare, health promotion, homelessness, the provision of social housing, rural poverty and urban deprivation.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Unemployment Statistics
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures for Scotland. [81012]

  Mr. Macdonald
  ILO unemployment (not seasonally adjusted) in Scotland fell by 5,000 over the year to December 1998-February 1999 to 179,000. The rate of ILO unemployment fell by 0.1 percentage points to 7.2 per cent.

  Kvaerner Group
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to protect the jobs of those currently employed in the Kvaerner group in Scotland. [81015]

  Mr. Macdonald
  A Task Force has been established to identify potential purchasers of the shipyard at Govan, the engineering works at Clydebank and any other Scottish business affected by the Kvaerner announcement and to report its findings to the Scottish Office.

  Sir Gavin Laird is chairing the Task Force. Other members are Mr. David Smith, former Commercial Director of the Govan shipyard, Mr. Malcolm Clark, former President of Keystone International in the USA, and Mr. Bill Scott, former Director of Ferguson Shipbuilders Ltd. The work of the Task Force will be given the full support of the Scottish Office and it will be able to call on whatever additional and specialist support it requires. Kvaerner has given a commitment to give the Task Force its wholehearted support.

  Women's Refuges
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money he has allocated to the provision of women's refuges over the past three years. [80997]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Local authorities are responsible for the financial support of women's refuges as they are best placed to consider the priorities and care needs of the population within their area. The Government have provided substantial resources to enable authorities to meet their social work and housing responsibilities. In addition, we have provided £200,000 under the Urban Programme (now the Social Inclusion Partnership Fund) in the three years to March 1998 specifically for Council support of women's refuges.

  In the three years to March 1999, the Scottish Office provided grants of over £664,000 to Scottish Women's Aid, the national voluntary organisation to which the majority of local women's aid refuges are affiliated. We

  131
  provided an additional £150,000 earlier this year following the public response to the recent domestic abuse advertising campaign.

  From 1 July 1999, these matters will be for the Scottish Parliament.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list his responsibilities in relation to the trial of the Lockerbie suspects in the Netherlands following the transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament. [81023]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have no responsibilities in relation to the Lockerbie trial. The transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament will not affect that position.

  Judicial Review (Hearings)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals to enable judicial review hearings to be heard in regional centres outside London. [81024]

  Mr. Hoon
  As of 1 July, judicial review cases involving Welsh devolution issues could be initiated and heard in Wales. On 22 March the Lord Chancellor announced a Review of whether judicial review cases should be heard in regional centres outside London.

  Shrievalty (Reform)
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to reform the shrievalty. [81025]

  Mr. Hoon
  Sheriffs have a role in the enforcement of High Court judgments. A review of enforcement is currently being undertaken by this Department, which will examine that role in some detail, particularly during the Review's second stage, starting in June 2000 Any proposals affecting the Sheriffs will be subject to public consultation.

  Small Claims Court
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of small claims court procedures. [81027]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department commissioned research into the small claims procedure from Professor John Baldwin. This was published in December 1997. Professor Baldwin found that at least three quarters of the litigants interviewed, who had been involved in small claims, were content with the way their cases had been handled in court. This included some who had lost their cases as well as those who had won.

  Queen's Counsel (Appointments)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the shortest time a barrister has spent in practice before being appointed a QC since 1969. [81031]

  Mr. Hoon
  According to available departmental records, the shortest period that has elapsed, since 1969, between the date to call to the Bar of England and Wales and the award of Queen's Counsel is six years. This applicant, however, had previously spent many years in practice in another jurisdiction.

  Personal Injury Cases
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what action the Government are taking to ensure adequate insurance cover for fees to undertake personal injury cases. [81032]

  Mr. Hoon
  Insurance products have been available for almost four years and at least 55,000 policies have been issued in that period. In the last 18 months more products have emerged, including one by a major insurers in the last month.

  I and my officials continue to hold discussions with the insurance industry to enable them to take decisions about whether to create newer, even better products. I am satisfied that people with good personal injury claims will be able to secure insurance to underpin a conditional fee agreement offered by their lawyer.

  Judiciary (Interests)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will introduce a register of interests for the judiciary. [81033]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor has no present plans to introduce a register of interests for the judiciary.

  Court Proceedings
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to make court proceedings less formal. [81028]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government are aiming to create an open, fair and accessible justice system. In civil proceedings, the civil justice reforms, introduced yesterday, will provide rules in plain English; extend the simple and informal small claims procedure, and encourage greater use of alternative dispute resolution.

  In criminal proceedings, the Government are considering ways to help change the culture in the youth courts, to make them less adversarial and more understandable for those involved. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill contains a number of measures directed at enabling vulnerable or intimidated witnesses to give their best evidence. These include the power to order the removal of wigs and gowns where appropriate.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he
  133
  has made of the proportion of the legal aid budget in 1998£99 spent on individual cases of exceptionally high cost. [81030]

  Mr. Hoon
  Assessing the proportion of the legal aid budget spent during any particular financial year on individual cases of exceptionally high costs would not provide any useful analysis, since payments are spread over the lifetime of a case, which may extend to a number of years. Additionally, a civil case may not result in any cost to the Fund if, at the end of the case, all costs and damages are recovered.

  Monmouth County Court
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to close Monmouth County Court; and what representations he has received opposing these proposals. [81856]

  Mr. Hoon
  On 8 March 1999, the Lord Chancellor granted permission to open public consultation, over a two month period, on a proposal to close Monmouth County Court. As at 21 April, 4 representations had been received, 3 of which oppose the proposal to close.

  Judges' Council
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department from what funds the(a) costs of administration and (b) expenses of members the Judges' Council are met; and, for each of its last three years, what was the total cost of the Judges' Council. [82340]

  Mr. Hoon
  The secretariat for the Judges' Council is provided by the Lord Chief Justice's Private Office as a small part of its regular duties. The costs are not identifiable separately. No expenses are payable to members of the Judges' Council.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will make a statement on the process of appointments of members of the Judges' Council; [82338]

  (2) if he will list the members of the Judges' Council, indicating their positions; [82337]

  (3) to whom the Judges' Council is accountable; and if he will make a statement. [82350]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Judges' Council is an independent body without a formal constitution. It has no statutory basis, exercises no executive functions and controls no public expenditure. It meets to discuss issues of concern to the senior judiciary and to represent the views of the senior judiciary to the Lord Chancellor and other individuals and bodies. It is wholly independent of Government and is accountable only to those whose views it represents. Its membership is a matter for the Council itself and those whose views it represents.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what(a) instructions and (b) advice has been issued by the Judge's Council concerning membership of pressure groups as a disqualification from sitting as a judge; what pressure groups have been identified by the Judges' Council in such instructions and advice; and if he will make a statement. [R][82339]
  134
  Mr. Hoon
  The Judges' Council does not issue instructions to anyone. I understand that it has recently, on request, given advice to individual part-time judges about declaring their membership of particular professional organisations, in any case where such membership might give rise to a potential conflict of interest. The Council is wholly independent of Government and any advice it may offer to others is not a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kosovo
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been the value of humanitarian aid provided to Kosovan refugees organised or administered by her Department(a) from October 1998 to 23 March and (b) since 23 March; and what plans she has to increase the scope of humanitarian assistance. [81943]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We committed £3 million for the period June 1998 to March 1999 for programmes of humanitarian assistance to displaced persons and refugees affected by the conflict in Kosovo. No additional allocations were made between October 1998 and 23 March 1999. Since March 23, the Government have committed a further £20 million for assistance to the Kosovo refugees.

  Our field offices in Tirana and Skopje are currently identifying priorities for future assistance. We are also ready to provide help for those in need within Kosovo as soon as secure access can be guaranteed.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate her Department has made of the number of refugees who(a) left Kosovo up to 24 March and (b) have left Kosovo since 24 March; and what sources it uses to make such estimates. [81920]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Our primary source for estimates of refugee numbers is the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It estimates that 69,500 refugees left Kosovo for neighbouring states as a result of internal conflict up to 24 March 1999: and that a further 530,500 have left since 24 March, as at 26 April.

  Zimbabwe (AIDS)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she is giving to the Government of Zimbabwe to help them to combat AIDS. [81858]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Our programme in Zimbabwe includes major projects for the supply and social marketing of male and female condoms, and training health workers in treatment and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. We are also supporting a community-based AIDS awareness programme known as "Stepping Stones". We welcome President Mugabe's recognition of the AIDS issues in his Independence Day speech, and the establishment of a National AIDS Coordinating Council. This will provide a basis for discussions of further support, consistent with our new Country Strategy Paper.

  Departmental Legal Business
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's policy when(a) conducting legal proceedings and (b) seeking legal advice as to the circumstances in which Queen's Counsel should be instructed; and for each of the last three years (i) on how many occasions her Department instructed Queen's Counsel and (ii) what was the total cost of instructing Queen's Counsel. [81768]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Crown Prosecution Service, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Serious Fraud Office and the Legal Secretariat to the Law Office predominantly use Junior Counsel when it is necessary to instruct counsel to provide legal advice or to conduct legal proceedings.

  In civil cases, the two First Treasury Counsel are both Junior Counsel and they will advise and represent the Government without a Queen's Counsel in many of their important cases. In addition, the Attorney-General maintains four panels of Junior Counsel whom departments are expected to use for the majority of the government's civil litigation. The Attorney-General's, or Solicitor-General's, approval is required before a Queen's Counsel can be instructed to appear for any Government Department in civil litigation.

  A panel of Senior Treasury Counsel and the Junior Treasury Counsel, who are all Junior Counsel, exists in London to provide advice in more significant criminal case work, and to handle most serious and complex work at the Central Criminal Court. More generally, the Crown Prosecution Service maintains circuit-based lists of Junior Counsel to conduct almost all its criminal casework in the Crown Court in England and Wales. Outside London, Queen's Counsel are instructed in all contested murder cases, and occasionally in other very serious or complex casework prosecuted by the Crown.

  In determining the level of counsel to use, the Department will consider the individual circumstances of each case. It will take into account, inter alia, the importance and sensitivity of the case, and the complexity of the law, the weight and complexity of the evidence, and the degree or experience and expertise required before deciding whether to instruct Queen's Counsel or Junior Counsel.

  The number of occasions on which the Department for International Development has instructed Queen's Counsel in the last three years, and the cost of doing so, cannot be given without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Organ Transplants (Living Donors)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to 136
  prevent the sale of human body parts from living donors; and what assessment she has made of the prevalence of this practice. [81859]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The World Health Organisation regulates the use of human organs for transplantation. The Department has no information on the prevalence of the practice of selling human body parts from living donors.

  Overseas Debt
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much debt was owed to her Department by each individual debtor country at 31 December 1998. [82006]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The debts outstanding to the Department for International Development as of 31 December 1998 are as follows:

  £000

  Country

  Principal

  Interest

  Total

  Antigua and Barbuda

  1,687

  —

  1,687

  Belize

  11,928

  —

  11,928

  Brazil

  1,692

  382

  2,074

  Cameroon

  67

  —

  67

  Cayman Islands

  188

  —

  188

  Colombia

  170

  —

  170

  Costa Rica

  766

  93

  859

  Cyprus

  131

  —

  131

  Ecuador

  7,783

  3,935

  11,718

  India

  5,806

  —

  5,806

  Jamaica

  29,133

  10,576

  39,709

  Liberia

  77

  1

  78

  Malaysia

  2,903

  282

  3,185

  Nigeria

  4,907

  24

  4,931

  Paraguary

  1,874

  —

  1,874

  Phillipines

  2,702

  145

  2,847

  Seychelles

  7,886

  824

  8,710

  St. Kitts

  2,303

  —

  2,303

  St. Vincent

  3,421

  —

  3,421

  Swaziland

  1,538

  —

  1,538

  Turkey

  24,016

  4,771

  28,787

  Zimbabwe

  11,334

  557

  11,891

  Total

  122,312

  21,590

  143,902

  Our Department has cancelled the debts of over 30 countries, worth over £1.2 billion since 1978. In September 1997, we launched the Commonwealth Debt Initiative, announcing that we were willing to cancel the remaining aid debt due to the UK from lower income Commonwealth countries to those countries which are committed to the International Development Goals and are following sound economic policies which benefit the poor, and which promote responsive and accountable government, encourage transparency and bear down on corruption.

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

Shadow Arts Council
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the establishment of a shadow arts council.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we welcome any contribution to mature debate on the arts in Britain, but we cannot agree with Sir Peter Hall's analysis. This Government are passionate about the arts and have translated that commitment into the largest increase in funding for the arts in a generation.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer. However, perhaps I may offer him my deepest sympathy for the quandary in which the Labour Government find themselves with regard to the arts. After all, it is only six or nine months since the Prime Minister, at a Downing Street seminar on the arts, said that he intended to write the arts into Labour's core script. What does the Minister think has gone wrong? Why have people as famous and diverse as John Tusa, Howard Hodgkin, Harold Pinter and Peter Hall decided that the arts are in danger? Could it be that the Arts Council, for example, is now seen only as the corporate finance management division of an increasingly interventionist Minister of Culture?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's sympathy, but it is totally misplaced. There is no change whatever in this Government's commitment to the arts, as was made clear in the announcement of funding made by the Secretary of State on 1st April. The noble Lord mentioned Sir Howard Hodgkin as being a supporter of a shadow arts council. I need only mention those who have been reported as dissociating themselves from the shadow arts council; that is, Simon Rattle, Richard Eyre, Tom Stoppard, Jeremy Isaacs, Alan Ayckbourn, Harrison Birtwistle and Howard Hodgkin. They are the knights; we have not yet come to the commoners. The crocodile tears expressed by the noble Lord are totally misplaced.
Lord Gibson: My Lords—
Lord Bragg: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross-Bench!
Lord Gibson: My Lords, what future do the Government envisage for the Arts Council, given that it
142
is now devolving most of its grant-making functions to the regions, which is perfectly sensible so far as is practical? On the other hand, when a national company gets into trouble, as Covent Garden did recently, the Minister assumes the role which previously was thought appropriate for the Arts Council. What is left for the Arts Council to do? Is it just to speak up for the arts? If so, is it perhaps that role which the shadow arts council, with which I am not associated, thinks it would perform more effectively?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right up to a point. The Arts Council has decided to devolve a fair amount of its responsibilities to the regional arts boards, where local funding of the arts can be closer to the point of sale, so to speak. However, we must not exaggerate the extent of that change. Thirty-six organisations with a total funding of £15 million have been devolved to the regional arts boards. The Arts Council will still have a very important role in relation to national bodies and it will, of course, make economies in its staffing. However, together with the regional arts boards, the Government are convinced that we shall have adequate coverage of arm's length funding of the arts in this country.
Lord Bragg: My Lords—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords. there is about as much sense in having a shadow arts council as there would be in having a shadow Bank of England, for example.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I am interested in my noble friend's suggestion, and I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be as interested in that as I am.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their generosity in allowing me to speak. Is the Minister aware that the arts are in better shape in this country than they have been since 1979? Could he, for our information and delight, expand on that a little?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was prepared to go back to the term of office of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, as Minister for the Arts in 1990–92, when it is certainly true that he commanded a larger arts budget than any of his successors in the Conservative Government. However, I think the noble Lord will recognise that funding over the next few years is greater in real terms than it was when he was Minister for the Arts, and certainly very much greater than it was under the regime of his successors.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that kind reference. Indeed, I was able to obtain £28 million extra for arts funding in the year when I was Minister for the Arts. However, surely he must recognise the basic fact that there is now approximately double the amount of money available for funding the arts that there used to be because of the

143
National Lottery, which was introduced by the Government of which I was a member. That is a fundamental fact. Surely the Minister would agree that it is against that background that the present dissatisfaction in the arts is so surprising.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in that case it is even more remarkable that the Government, apart from the National Lottery, have found an extra £125 million for the arts over the next three years. I would have thought the former Minister would congratulate us on that. The dissatisfaction is very limited. We are happy to talk to those who are dissatisfied, and we always have been, but we still do not need any sympathy from the noble Lord.

Kosovo: Humanitarian Assistance
2.42 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside Lord Evans of Parkside asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to assist refugees from Kosovo.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have played a major role in international efforts to bring humanitarian assistance to the refugees from Kosovo. We are focusing our help on the countries where they first sought safety, primarily Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. We are providing airlifts of emergency personnel and relief supplies, a truck convoy, logistics personnel and equipment, and support for the refugee camps which NATO forces have established. The offices which we have established in Skopje and Tirana are helping us to identify priorities for further assistance.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that full reply. Will she confirm that the basic purpose of the NATO bombardment of Serbian targets is to seek to protect the Kosovar Albanians from widespread and murderous ethnic cleansing by the Serbian militia? Will my noble friend also agree that if NATO's policy is to succeed, then at some stage NATO forces will have to occupy Kosovo? That may take some considerable time. In those circumstances, will she agree that on humanitarian grounds there is a considerable case to be made for removing all women and children from the dreadful refugee camps on the Kosovan borders and relocating them in NATO countries until such time as they can return in safety to Kosovo and their menfolk?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, I confirm that our priority is to ensure that in the main Kosovar refugees receive care in the region so that they can return easily to their homes when it is safe for them to do so. I share the anxieties identified by my noble friend as regards what is happening to women and children. Noble Lords who heard the Statement made
144
yesterday by the Prime Minister in relation to the NATO summit will be aware that several atrocities are being carried out against women and children. We are extremely concerned in that regard.
As to the position regarding ground troops, it has always been envisaged that at some stage ground troops will go in as part of the end game. However, there is no intention to mount a forced invasion of Kosovo. The NATO Secretary-General asked the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe to reassess ground troop options. That is part of the process of assessing all possible options for bringing about the peaceful return of the Kosovar Albanians.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me with a question which her noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean failed to answer yesterday; namely, before the bombing started, how many Kosovar Albanians were estimated to be in Kosovo? Also, how many are now estimated to have been driven over the border? How many are left in Kosovo? And, if possible, is there an estimate of how many have actually been killed by this murderous regime?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am unable to give the kind of detail the noble Lord requests. However, since 24th March just under 625,000 people have left Kosovo and are refugees in a variety of countries across the region. I am unable to give reliable figures in relation to the number of people left in Kosovo or in relation to the number of people who have been killed.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness convey to her ministerial friends how much I appreciate their determination not to split up Kosovar families? Will she also convey to her colleagues that it is important, when it comes to temporary admission, that this country should be seen to be no less generous than our friends and partners in the rest of western Europe?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we are concerned to try to keep Kosovar families together. In fact, we funded the Red Cross which has put in place a family-tracing service. With respect to refugees entering the United Kingdom, the noble Lord will be aware that over the weekend a number of people entered the United Kingdom. We have set up a clear process with UNHCR. We have set up a range of criteria against which UNHCR assess the basis on which it recommends that people should come to the UK. But we are firm in our resolve that refugees should be kept to the region as much as possible to expedite their return to Kosovo.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, with reference to the tail-end of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, does not the noble Baroness agree that we must not appear to be less generous than the other countries of Europe in providing the temporary accommodation required? Surely all the refugees cannot be accommodated near Kosovo. There must be a case

145
for temporary accommodation in the rest of Europe. We heard that Germany is providing accommodation for 20,000. What are this Government going to do about it?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, your Lordships may be aware that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has stated very clearly that we are prepared to take some thousands of refugees here in the UK. However, a specific number has not been identified. We have agreed with UNHCR, which is co-ordinating refugees in the region, criteria against which it will assess whether or not refugees want to come to this country; but we will not do that against the will of the refugees themselves. We think that it is extremely important that refugees have some choice in the matter. Therefore, evacuation from the region to the UK must be voluntary.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, the Minister made an extremely important statement this afternoon when she stated in response to an earlier question that the use of ground troops in Kosovo has always been envisaged. That is a radical and remarkable change in policy. Therefore, why did the Prime Minister categorically rule out the use of ground troops at the beginning of the military action in Kosovo?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am surprised by what the noble Lord has said. There has been absolutely no change in this Government's policy. In the Rambouillet accord it was agreed, as part of a peace-keeping process and to ensure and secure peace in the region, that ground troops would be considered. There has been no change in policy.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister agree with me that the arrangements made at Leeds Bradford Airport over the weekend were excellent? I have in mind the services provided by the Immigration Service, social services, the Refugee Council and the police. Indeed, all the authorities performed excellently. Will my noble friend also join me in thanking the people of Leeds and Bradford who came to receive the refugees and agree with me that the services provided for the refugees were the very best?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for those questions. He has given me the opportunity to join with him in thanking not only the people of Leeds and Bradford but also all the authorities who so very positively responded to the refugees who arrived over the weekend. We have put the arrangements for the receiving of refugees in the UK into the hands of the Refugee Council, which has been tasked by the Home Secretary with putting in place a special reception service for refugees who are arriving here under the UNHCR humanitarian evacuation programme.

Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty
2.52 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle The Earl of Carlisle asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consulted the Government of the Republic of Finland and the three Baltic states before they agreed to adapt the 1996 Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty between NATO and the Russian Federation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) was signed in 1990 by the states of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The treaty's Flank provisions were revised in 1996. The previous government discussed the issues with the Baltic states and Finland beforehand. Treaty adaptation continues, and our aim remains that CFE should enhance the security of all, including those states not party to it. We have, therefore, continued to consult regularly with the Baltic states, Finland and other non-parties to the treaty.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Although I welcome the recent statement made in Washington that NATO remains open to all new members who wish to join after negotiations, does the Minister agree that the Baltic states are in no man's land at present? Therefore, will the Minister ensure that we continue to inform and consult the Baltic states long in advance of our agreeing to various matters with the Russian Federation? Further, will. Her Majesty's Government also insist on the most vigorous and thorough site inspections when the treaty comes into effect on the 31st of next month, especially in the Oblasts of Pskov, Leningrad and Kaliningrad, to ensure that the Russian Federation complies with the treaty? That will demonstrate its goodwill and enhance security in the Baltic region.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that there was informal discussion in the margins in Vienna between the Baltic states and officials representing Her Majesty's Government. There were also discussions between the Baltic states and Norway, Denmark and Poland, which also have a great interest in the matter. I can give the noble Earl the assurance that he seeks that such discussions will continue.
The noble Earl may also be interested to know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has written to the Presidents of Latvia and Estonia regarding the agreement reached on 30th March, setting out some of the improvements in the arrangements to he made. He said:
"There will also be greater opportunities to verify that Russia complies with this"—
that is to say, the improvements—
"as the Treaty provisions for military transparency have also been enhanced".

147
It means that we will be able to send in arms controls inspectors to verify that the terms of the arrangements reached on 30th March are complied with.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, can the Minister say what assurances the Government have received from Russia to substantiate her statement yesterday that the Kosovo crisis does not negate any of the principles underpinning the NATO/Russian Founding Act 1997? I ask that question in the light of the recall last month of Russia's chief military representative at NATO.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Russia has not renounced the NATO/Russia Founding Act, which created the framework for co-operation. Indeed, co-operation is still continuing on important practical issues, as I believe the conclusion of the framework agreement for the adaptation of the CFE treaty on 30th March shows. I hope that the noble Lord will also be pleased to know that co-operation is continuing on a number of other related issues, including those surrounding the millennium bug. Therefore, the discussions on these important issues are continuing.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her most reassuring reply to my Question. However, can she give the House any more detail of the new membership action plan for countries such as the three Baltic states—namely, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—which aspire to join the alliance?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the NATO summit decided that NATO would maintain an active relationship with those countries which have applied for membership. One way of doing so was to put into place the membership action plan to which the noble Earl refers. The measures include: first, the submission by aspiring members of individual annual national programmes; secondly, a feedback mechanism from NATO on progress on those individual programmes; thirdly, a clearing house to help to co-ordinate military assistance; and, fourthly, a defence planning approach which will include elaboration and review of planning targets. Therefore, those four areas are contained within the action plan mentioned by the noble Earl.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I am genuinely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, for including Finland in his well-known concerns on the Baltic states. I also fully support the principle that the Finns and the other Nordic countries are fully entitled to be concerned about the stability and health of the Baltic nations. However, as far the Question on the Order Paper relates to border controls, especially as regards the Finnish/Russian border, will the Minister confirm that the Finns are entitled and correct to be perfectly happy with the existing system of consultations which they have with Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, Her Majesty's Government are
148
continuing to consult not only with the Baltic states but also with Finland. Indeed, we take the Finnish concerns most seriously and hold regular consultations with Finland. The noble Viscount may be interested to know that the most recent formal discussion of CFE with Finland took place between officials on 12th and 13th April this year and that informal discussions have taken place since. We believe that the CFE adaptation process will indeed benefit Finnish security. We shall, of course, remain in close touch with the Finns over the matter.

Rail Privatisation: Advice
2.59 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the brochure Releasing the Power of Rail, compiled by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and offering British expertise on privatisation of railways to prospective customers abroad, represents their most recent conclusions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government recognise and value the experience and expertise of British companies in the rail sector, which long predate privatisation, and are keen to promote this overseas. Many of our companies are world class. However, that does not conflict with our desire to see improved performance in many key areas, such as punctuality and passenger service, by the private rail operators and Railtrack in the UK. That is why the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister called the industry to the national rail summit in February and it is why the Government are committed to creating a new strategic rail authority.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. However, are the Government presenting a picture for use abroad which is very different from the derogatory statements that have been made by Ministers here at home? While selling British expertise is to be encouraged in every way, do Ministers endorse the proposition in the brochure that this country's railways are now performing with energy and enthusiasm and that they are providing a market where the customer is king?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for our overseas trade activities. The brochure Releasing the Power of Rail was produced by the Railway Sector Group, an industry group of private companies which was assisted in the drafting by a media and publishing consultant. The brochure is an industry promotional tool for use on overseas trade missions and does not represent government policy.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is invaluable to be able to impart to our customers abroad information about all the mistakes

149
that we have committed that need to be avoided by them in pursuing a sensible railway policy, which the previous government failed dismally to do?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as we have always said, not everything is wrong. If one increases the taxpayer subsidy to the railways by over 50 per cent., as has been the case since privatisation, clearly there will be a substantial amount of new investment in the railways. We have some fine engineering and consultancy companies and others in the rail sector which have a good reputation which ought to be exploited in the rest of the world. That is exactly what the leaflet, to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred, is doing.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, bearing in mind that this brochure, excellent as it sounds, must have the endorsement of both the Foreign Office and the DTI, will the noble Lord arrange for its wider dissemination in this country, in particular in the Library of your Lordships' House and perhaps even in the Government's weekly Whip because we on this side of the House accept what is in the brochure, but it appears to us that certain noble Lords on the opposite side of the House, including Ministers, seem to be "off message" with regard to the brochure? That should be put right.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to amuse himself, but he was not listening. I said that the brochure does not represent government policy. When I read it, I was astonished by a number of the statements in it, some of which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. The UK Railway Sector Group is entitled to its opinion. As it is doing a good job we are entitled—I think we are obliged—to help it to sell its products overseas. As regards placing the report in the Library, we shall of course gladly do so if it is of interest to noble Lords.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be better to warn overseas countries to avoid the mistakes made by the previous government, such as the privatisation of rail?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the efforts of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are restricted to supporting the overseas promotional activities of those companies which have taken part in the compilation of this brochure. That does not imply any approval by them or by us of the performance since privatisation of the operating companies or Railtrack in this country. Everyone who travels on the rail network in this country is well aware of its defects.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, as the former chairman of the only railway company in Latin America quoted on the London stock market, I assure the noble Lord that there is no reason why private enterprise in overseas territories should not have a great role to play in helping to facilitate the development of rail.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to congratulate the noble Viscount on
150
declaring the most interesting interest that has been declared today. He may well be right about the operation of private railway companies in other countries. However, this is not a matter on which the Government feel it necessary to comment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will allow me, through him, to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, that he can obtain a copy of the pamphlet, as I did, in the Printed Paper Office. With regard to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will the official members—that is to say, the DTI members and trade Secretaries serving overseas—be encouraged to inform and support the efforts of other countries' nationalised railways to avoid the mistakes that we have made; for example, in regard to selling off rail land unnecessarily and not setting up national services immediately upon denationalisation? We need to get that quite clear.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness agrees that it would be better if our overseas trade posts targeted their activities on the recommendations of the brochure, which seeks to promote the services of the companies which are members of the Railway Sector Group. If we start to give general advice about privatisation, we shall find it difficult to avoid interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. That would not be of particular benefit to our commerce.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the great disparity between railway companies, some of which are extremely good? Why are some not so good?
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords—

House of Lords Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, before the House takes a view on the resolution before it, I raise a procedural point and seek the guidance of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. There appears on the revised second Marshalled List today an amendment which is now numbered 10A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and others. Inevitably as it is first on the list it will take proper precedence in our debate.
However, a recent first report of the Procedure Committee set down a method of looking at amendments which I believe met with the acceptance of the House as a whole. Indeed I believe the noble Lord was party, as a member of the Procedure Committee, to

151
that recommendation. It referred to Marshalled Lists of amendments published on the working day before a debate. It stated,
"Lords should be encouraged to facilitate this by tabling amendments no later than 5 pm two days before the debate, whenever possible".
This amendment was clearly not tabled two days before the debate and therefore we have to consider whether the words "whenever possible" might apply. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would agree that there were no extenuating circumstances. The amendment standing in his name and those of other noble Lords is only part of our general debate. It does not even arise with regard to matters which will be discussed at the Committee stage next week.
We need a degree of latitude in matters of this kind. I believe this is in clear breach of the spirit of the recommendation of the Procedure Committee. I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—and perhaps, through her, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—whether we are to regard this as a precedent for the way in which we are to proceed on the Bill, because it will not help the orderly conduct of affairs.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. He asked whether it was in order to put down the amendment that I have tabled. I believe it is and I would very much appreciate the confirmation of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on that point.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I agree that the matter is formally within the letter of the law as regards the procedure of the House. However, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is correct in saying that it is not within the spirit of the understanding that we have of the report of the Procedure Committee which was accepted by your Lordships earlier this year.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness will take some time later this afternoon to re-examine what she has said. I am not at all aware that it is against the spirit of the report of the Procedure Committee. I am under the impression that it is perfectly in order to table the amendment as we have done. Indeed, in the report of the Procedure Committee there is a system whereby amendments tabled late would be printed on a separate piece of paper. If the noble Baroness would confirm that that is her understanding, perhaps we can carry on with the Committee stage.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has got it slightly wrong. He does not have the Procedure Committee report in front of him. I thought that he would be pleased that the amendment was published in the Marshalled List. As the noble Baroness said, the resolution which has been agreed by the House states that it should be published in a revised Marshalled List or in a supplementary list. There is no argument about that. It is to the advantage of the noble Lord and to the advantage of the whole House. The real
152
question is whether the recommendation of the Procedure Committee means what it says. There can be no doubt at all that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has acted outside the spirit of the matter. I do not intend to pursue it further; I do not want to delay the debate on the main issue. I only hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, does not do it again.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this is an amendment of overriding consequence, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, has said to the contrary. It is concerned with what could conceivably be a fundamental defect in the drafting of Clause 1 of the Bill. In these exceptional circumstances, as I see it at all events, it is right that it should take place before Clause 1 because it is a wholly exceptional circumstance. If it has arrived late, that is nothing to do with me; it has arrived late.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure the substance of the question of whether the amendment is relevant to the underlying purpose of the Bill will be the subject of the debate, which I hope we can proceed to. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that if the amendment was so obvious and so fundamental it is surprising that it was tabled so late. As to the spirit of the understandings which were agreed with the Procedure Committee, I think—I do not have the advantage of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, of having the report in front of me—the words were that the practice is to be discouraged. I am in the hands of the House about whether to discourage this practice, but I think it was agreed that discouraging the late setting of amendments was precisely to facilitate the arrangements for every Member of the House on all sides.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot accept this. I was present in the Procedure Committee which discussed this. It was quite clear that it was intended that on occasions amendments would be tabled late according to what I might term the old rules. If that had not been the case I would not have agreed to the report of the Procedure Committee. If the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, is saying that there should be a further examination by the Procedure Committee, there is a perfectly good system to allow that discussion to take place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No.10A:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
EXCLUSION OF HEREDITARY PEERS
(". No-one shall receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords by virtue of an hereditary peerage. ")
The noble Lord said: Before I turn to the amendment, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, that he should thank his lucky stars
Noble Lords: Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sorry. I meant Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. Such a distinguished colleague as my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry would not have asked such a question. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, should be grateful that I did not produce a manuscript amendment.
As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has just said, the object of the amendment is to probe a very important part of the Bill and to seek the Government's view as a result of an opinion given by Mr. John Lofthouse. As your Lordships know, I am the only member of the "Triplets Mackay" who is not a lawyer, and therefore the amendment is very much a lay amendment. The clause is very much a lay clause because it does not address the peerage in a technically precise way. As it stands in the Bill, the clause hangs on the three words "by virtue of', which my noble friend Lord Ferrers will raise and probe later.
How is it that we—all of us, life Peers and hereditary Peers—come to be sitting in your Lordships' House? I suggest and submit that it is in response to a Writ of Summons. Once we come here, all of us, apart from the right reverend Prelates, have the right to stay here for life. Whether hereditary Peers or life Peers, we are here because of a Writ of Summons. An hereditary Peer does not sit in your Lordships' House by virtue of being an hereditary Peer. There are some 70 holders of hereditary Peerages who cannot be here today because they have no Writ of Summons. A number of my noble friends—my noble friend Lord Caithness is one—inherited their Peerages before they were 21 years old. They could not come here; they did not receive a Writ of Summons. That is one example. A Peer who is bankrupt cannot receive a Writ of Summons to come here. A Peer whose father dies cannot walk in here and demand to take his seat if he does not have a Writ of Summons. Every time someone comes to take the Oath, whether at the beginning of a Session or as happened earlier today, a piece of paper is handed to the Clerk; and that piece of paper is the Writ of Summons. It is not the hereditary Peerage but the Writ of Summons that is important.
The terminology in legislation is vitally important. Perhaps I may illustrate it in this way. English, Scottish and Welsh people are all entitled to be Members of the House of Commons. But let us say—it does not look very likely from the opinion polls in Scotland at the moment—that Scotland were to become independent and one wished to exclude Scots from this Parliament—present company, the Lord Chancellor and myself excluded, I need hardly say. How would one go about it? One might put forward a late piece of legislation that said "No one shall be a Member of the House of Commons by virtue of being a Scot". Would that exclude Scots from the House of Commons? Clearly it would not. It would not be enough for the Government to say "Ah, but that is what we intended". If that is what is intended then that is what should be on the face of the Bill.
154
The amendment is a simple, layman's proposition but it is based on the opinion of one of the leading practitioners of peerage law in our country, Mr John Lofthouse, whose opinion on such matters has been sought by the Government in the past. His opinion is perfectly clear. He says:
"nobody is a 'member of the House of Lords' by virtue of an hereditary peerage. Membership of the House is conferred by obedience to a writ of summons"'.
He goes on to say that that is no mere technicality. He reminds us of the leading case on this matter—it may have been some time ago, but it is still the leading case—the case of the Earl of Bristol. He was a hereditary Peer but Charles I refused him a Writ—I suspect that Charles I did not want him to sit in your Lordships' House—and because he had been refused a Writ he could not sit in your Lordships' House. It was only after he had contested the issue and had received a Writ of Summons that he was able to sit in your Lordships' House.
Clause 1 does not seem to be the whole, or even part, of the answer when it comes to excluding hereditary Peers from this place. It may seem strange, but I am trying to help the Government in this regard. It is part of your Lordships' role to revise legislation and to ensure that it means what it says. Whether one agrees with what it says is another matter, but it should certainly mean what it says.
The Government may ask: does not subsection (4) of Clause 2 override the writ, even if the argument about Clause 1 is correct? I do not know the answer. As I said, I am not a lawyer. But it is a question worth asking. We all look forward to hearing the answers to these points from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
There are those who say that the writ is merely a summons; that, once the writ has been answered and a Peer has come to this House, it cannot be used as a means to eject a Peer. It is argued that a Peer who has taken the Oath sits in this House as of right, and that Clause 4(2) does not remove that right.
This legislation will set aside centuries of constitutional practice and precedent. It purports to set aside the rights, duties and privileges of Peers of Parliament summoned here by Royal Command. Those are rights to which human rights legislation, notwithstanding the declaration made by the Government in the Bill, may well apply, because there are legal rights and duties. Also, as noble Lords on all sides of the House have freely admitted, sacrifices have been made by many Peers to come to this place and do their duty in the expectation that they would sit here for the rest of their life. Can those rights and duties be readily and loosely overridden? I do not dispute that Parliament can do that. But in this age of human rights and natural justice, we must be careful about how Parliament does it.
The Government may say that the purpose of the legislation is clear. They may say: "It does not matter whether we have got all the small print right; it is what we wanted to do that must guide the courts"—as it were, a Pepper v. Hart view of legislation. That may well be right. But it seems slightly akin to someone deciding to

155
ban a ball game: let us say, cricket. We Scots sometimes think that cricket probably should be banned. If we set out to ban cricket, and did so on the definition of a ball that did not in fact "catch" a cricket ball, although it may have caught other balls, where would that leave us? We may be able to argue: "Yes, of course we are against cricket. We did not specify that it had to be a hard leather ball that we wanted to ban; we just specified balls"—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I did not mean that!
If one is going to do something specific, one really ought to draft the legislation to do that, and not to leave anyone in any doubt. Leaving people in doubt may have been good enough at one time, but it is not good enough now. I certainly think that one of the roles of this House is to ensure that people are not left in any doubt, that there is not a potential legal challenge. There can always be potential legal challenges, but we have a duty to try to ensure that we have covered all eventualities so that a legal challenge does not arise that was foreseen during the course of the Bill's passage. So we must examine this matter carefully.
Over time, this House has made clear its view that the law ought to be clearly made, so that political matters and judgment matters of a political nature are not left to the courts if that can possibly be avoided. Mr. Lofthouse's opinion, as will some of the views that we shall probably hear later in this debate, casts doubts on the drafting of the Bill. It suggests that the Bill may not actually achieve the Government's objective. I humbly submit that my amendment might better achieve that objective, without making any judgment as to whether or not I like it. I look forward to hearing the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—
Lord Richard: Before the noble Lord sits down, in view of the distinguished names that appear on this amendment—the quartet that we see is a very official one on behalf of the Opposition—can we take it that it is now the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition that no one shall receive a Writ of Summons to attend the House of Lords by virtue of an hereditary peerage, or is this merely a drafting nonsense?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought I had made that clear, even to the noble Lord, Lord Richard. As I have said, this House often tidies up, tries to improve and probes legislation of which it does not approve. When we were in government the Opposition, led by the noble Lord, did that on a number of occasions on propositions of which they heartily disapproved. It stopped them tabling probing amendments, clarifying amendments, to ensure that the legislation meant exactly what it said. That is exactly what I am doing. I am trying to ensure that we take the view of a proper revising Chamber and ensure that the legislation means what it says. We shall discuss whether we like what it says later.
Lord Peston: It looks as though we are playing a peculiar game here. My noble friend Lord Richard
156
deserved a straight answer. Let us assume, hypothetically, that by some miracle your Lordships, even without my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor rising to reply, agreed the amendment. The Bill would then include an amendment proposed by official Opposition spokesmen stating categorically that hereditary Peers would no longer receive Writs of Summons. Can we then assume—since I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, would play games with us—that through the rest of the Bill's passage, having got their own way in amending the Bill, seriously as they think, the Opposition would then nod through the whole of the rest of the Bill having improved it beyond all measure? Or shall we continue day after day playing these ludicrous games?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I never thought to ask the noble Lord the same kind of question when he tabled amendments to Bills that I was proposing when I knew that he did not approve of the Bill in total. It still did not prevent the noble Lord and his friends from tabling amendments, not wrecking amendments but probing amendments. I have tabled this amendment because I believe it is our duty to explore how the Bill operates, whether it is correctly drafted and how it works. I thought that I made our views perfectly clear at Second Reading.
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend sits down, will he confirm that it would be entirely wrong of this Front Bench or this House to allow a Bill to go forward knowing that it could not have the intended effect, and it therefore has a duty to probe this question; and that that is not a commitment to any policy except that of seeing that legislation works?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to my noble friend, who has had long experience. He has played a distinguished role, both in and out of government, in ensuring that legislation is questioned and properly drafted. He is absolutely right. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Perhaps I may trouble the Committee briefly in support of the purpose for which my noble friend declares he has proposed the new clause. I wonder whether it would not be prudent for the Government to take seriously the anxieties expressed by my noble friend, and to consider whether there may not be another means by which their declared objective can be achieved.
We are not talking about the merits of the Government's policy or what we feel about it. It can be easily described. It is to turn the hereditary Peers out of Parliament, and to do so at the end of this Session. What we are talking about is whether or not the language chosen to effect that policy actually does the job.
Like my noble friend, I feel a certain sense of paradox in seeming to attempt to help the Government to do their job. But I have always understood it to be central to the functions of this House that it pays careful attention to the quality of the legislation that is brought before it. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor

157
whether he is satisfied with the language that has been adopted in the Bill, or whether he thinks that it may be the case that different language would yield a more sure result.
As I have said, there is no difficulty in stating the Government's policy clearly. The trouble arises in their determination to use the concept of a Member of the House of Lords being a Member by virtue of a hereditary peerage; and by declaring in Clause 4(2) that the Writ of Summons of such a person shall not have effect after this Session. That is the problem that confronts us. Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that any Bill which purports to remove a component of Parliament—to eject part of Parliament—has to be expressed in crystal-clear language? I say that because it will be examined very closely and construed very tightly by any tribunal—it will probably be the Committee for Privileges—that is called upon to resolve the challenge.
Is there not a real argument that it is not until a Peer has received and obeyed a Writ of Summons and taken the Oath or affirmed that he or she becomes a Peer who is a Member of your Lordships' House? Is there not a real argument to that effect? Can it realistically be said that a Peer is a Member of the House of Lords when he or she cannot perform the function and duty of sitting and voting here because there has been no Writ of Summons? Is such a person's position not this: that he holds a peerage certainly, whether hereditary or life, but he is not a Member of the House of Lords?
This would not matter if the Bill did not proceed on the basis that it is using the nomenclature or title of,
"a member of the House of Lords".
I ask in passing whether that has ever been construed judicially and whether it has ever been defined. It is not defined in the Bill. What definition do the Government give? If my suggestion is right, in plain language surely it is by virtue of the Writ and obedience to the Writ that a hereditary Peer becomes a Member of the House of Lords and not by virtue of his hereditary Peerage. I do not know whether that argument is right; I do not know whether that argument is wrong; but I believe that it has substance and that it needs both a convinced and a convincing answer.
Much more important than my own views on the subject are the views of Mr. Lofthouse, a Treasury Counsel in peerage matters and someone of great experience and standing, who was referred to by my noble friend Lord Mackay. Is it not the case that Mr. Lofthouse, in his opinion, which I know the Lord Chancellor has seen, cites much House of Lords authority? Given these rather unsatisfactory and certainly unusual circumstances, would it not be wise for the Government to reflect that there are more ways available to them of skinning this cat? I suggest that the new clause is one of them—or at least it is part of one of them—because it reflects the primacy of the Writ of Summons by stopping any hereditary Peer from sitting and voting here because he will not have received a Writ of Summons. No doubt other forms of words could be found to achieve the same result.
158
The Government believe that their purpose of turning out hereditaries at the end of this Session is achieved, however curiously in point of form, when one reaches the commencement clause, Clause 4(2), which reads as follows:
"Accordingly. any writ of summons issued for the present Parliament in right of a hereditary peerage shall not have effect after that Session".
But again I ask the Lord Chancellor: does that language itself not have problems for the Government? Can it not be argued with some substance that a Writ of Summons is spent once we attend in obedience to it, hand it over and take the Oath? I understand, although I have not checked up on this, that to mark the fact that it is spent, a line is struck through it by the Clerk. It has no continuing effect once we have obeyed the command which it embodies to attend in your Lordships' House. So it rather looks as if the current language in the Bill, although it will not be wholly ineffective, will catch only those hereditary Peers who have failed by the end of this Session to turn up, to obey a Writ of Summons. It will catch, if I may say so, the backwoodsmen, but only the backwoodsmen.
It could be said that that is perhaps not a bad thing; if you happen to take that view, although it is immaterial whether you do or you do not. But whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, it is not the Government's thing. I suggest that this language will lead to many a challenge in the Committee for Privileges with which the Lord Chancellor, among others, would have to deal. Apart from anything else, there is an interest in making sure that the Bill is as clear as it can be.
I have had the advantage of seeing the letter which the Lord Chancellor kindly sent to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. Rather interestingly, the Lord Chancellor said in his letter that parliamentary counsel considered alternative approaches, including operating directly on the Writ of Summons in Clause 1, which this new clause precisely does. However, he said that the main reason for not doing so was the wish to get at the heart of the matter. That is all well and good, but where does the heart of the matter lie? It seems seriously possible, I suggest with great respect, that it lies not in the holding of a hereditary Peerage but in the receipt of and obedience to a Writ of Summons.
There are certainly other ways in which the declared intention of Clause 1 and Clause 4(2) could be more reliably achieved. The language might not be so sonorous; it might not be so welcome or agreeable to certain partisan eyes and ears; but it would very probably be better law. I trust that the Government will think again.
Lord Hooson: Has the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor considered accepting this amendment? If the Conservative Opposition and the learned counsel whom they quoted are correct, all that is needed to achieve the ends the Government have in mind is an acceptance of the amendment. If the amendment is accepted—it may well have the effect which the Conservative opposition claimed for it—it seems to me that none of the rest of the Bill is necessary. I cannot

159
see that Clause 4(2) would be necessary if the amendment were accepted. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord has considered that point.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish to make a truly short intervention. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will know that it is settled peerage law and not merely arguable that it is attendance to the Writ that gives the right to sit and the right of membership. It is nothing to do with heredity.
I have had the honour of serving for quite some time—about 15 years—on your Lordships' Committee for Privileges. If one wants to get to the heart of the matter—I totally accept the sincerity of the noble and learned Lord as to that—the heart of the matter according to peerage law is the Writ of Summons and attendance pursuant to that Writ, which not only confers the right to sit but the right of precedence over previous or other Peers who have received a Writ of Summons but have not attended. It is attendance before the House which confers precedence among the Peers of equal rank and the right to sit in your Lordships' House.
Lord Waddington: I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. The noble Lord suggested that if the Bill were amended in the way which is suggested in Amendment No.10A, the effect would be the same as that which the Lord Chancellor thinks that he has achieved by the present wording. I wonder whether that is strictly correct. A good deal must turn on the point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden. A good deal must turn on the effect of the tendering of the Writ by the Peer when he comes to the Box to take the Oath. I recall that when I was elected a Member of the House of Commons I had to turn up at the beginning of a Parliament and hand in my Writ. The handing in of my Writ was, as it were, my ticket for entry into the House of Commons for that Parliament. I did not have to carry it in my breast pocket and produce it every time I wanted to speak thereafter. The Writ was, in effect, spent when I tendered it at the beginning of a Parliament. I am fairly sure that that is its effect in the other place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may intervene. As a former Member of the House of Commons, I cannot recall ever having received a personal Writ of Summons or handing it in. The Writ of Summons goes to the returning officer who then returns it. That is why he is called a returning officer.
Lord Waddington: Perhaps I am mindful of the time when I was a candidate in a by-election. I can assure the noble Lord that I had to carry the Writ into the Chamber. At the beginning of a new Parliament, the procedure is simplified and all the various returning officers send in the Writs, but it has exactly the same effect. I carried with me into the Chamber my own Writ, which was my ticket that entitled me to sit in the House of Commons for the remainder of that Parliament. I suspect that the same happens to the Writ tendered by
160
a Peer when he comes to take the Oath in this Chamber. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will give his view on that. I believe that the Peer hands in his Writ which is his ticket to sit and speak in the House of Lords. The Writ is then spent and has no further effect.
If that is the way matters work in law, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is not quite correct in saying that the amendment would have the same effect as that intended by the Lord Chancellor. The effect of the amendment may well be that from this time onwards those who come to the Box with a Writ and ask for permission to sit in this House will be refused, but those who have already tendered their Writ and been accepted as Members of this House will retain that right for the rest of the Parliament. These are very important matters to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor must address his mind. When he comes to sum up the debate, I should like the Lord Chancellor to give his understanding of the effect of the Writ. Does he agree that once the Writ is submitted its effect is spent?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: Perhaps I may remind the Committee of the words of Lord Cranworth, the Lord Chancellor in the Wensleydale peerage case in the last century:
"That which gives every noble Lord his right to sit here is not his Patent of Nobility, but the Writ of Summons which he is entitled to, in consequence of that Patent".
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that at the very least there is doubt as to whether Clause 4(2) is effective in as much as the Writ may or may not still be alive after it has been presented and the holder of it has sat in Parliament.
Lord Mishcon: I apologise in advance for being quite wicked. I believe that I and my colleagues now know why this amendment was tabled at the last minute. Perhaps I may be forgiven for my suspicion that there was a strong minority in the party opposite who said that they must not make fools of themselves by tabling an amendment of this kind because of the result pointed out by my noble friend Lord Richard and others; namely, that they would go on record as being in favour of the amendment so tabled. Having said that, I congratulate the minority opposite who said that and deprecate for their sake the decision to table the amendment, which was reached at the last moment.
I turn to the amendment and the present wording of the Bill. In this debate we are speaking at the very time when, after centuries, writs of summons have ceased to be issued in the Royal Courts of Justice. I say very proudly that the first of the new substitutes for writs of summons was issued by my firm. My firm has now gone on historic record not for the number of negligence cases brought against it, but because it issued the first notice of claim to be handed to the senior master.
Having given that puff, in the same manner in which those writs of summons have been abolished, Writs of Summons to your Lordships' House may be abolished. What nonsense this amendment would bring about in not carrying out its purpose. No Writ of Summons,

161
notice of hearing or whatever it may be would be required for attendance in this House. We have limited ourselves by this amendment to the issue of a Writ of Summons. If there is any change in that procedure we have had it, to use a colloquialism. The wording of the Bill before us makes it transparently clear that whatever procedure may be adopted, hereditary Peers will not by virtue of that fact become Members of your Lordships' House and be entitled to speak and vote.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says that he is "wicked". That is his word; I would not have used that word. Sometimes he is mischievous, and I believe that he has been so this afternoon in explaining why the amendment was tabled. I believe that my noble friend has done a great service to the House and the Government. It is our purpose to look at what the Government are doing and, possibly, disagree with them, but also to help them.
The Bill at the moment does not carry water. It refers to a Peer being here by virtue of a hereditary peerage. However, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said, we are not here by virtue of an hereditary peerage but by virtue of a Writ of Summons. If this Bill passes into law unamended, it may well be that a Peer will contest the matter in a court of law. If the court found that he had a right to ask for and receive a Writ of Summons, the Government would look pretty stupid. We are trying to help the Government and to prevent them looking stupid, which is not an easy task. The fact is that we are here by virtue of a Writ of Summons, not a hereditary peerage.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Does the noble Earl agree that such a person would not receive a Writ of Summons unless he was a hereditary Peer?
Earl Ferrers: The Bill states that no one shall attend the House of Lords by virtue of the fact that he is a hereditary Peer. Although I have not seen the letter written by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew referred, it appears that parliamentary counsel had thought of using the Writ of Summons approach, but wanted to get to the heart of the matter.
What is the heart of the matter? To use the unfortunate phrase which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could not get his tongue round the other day, it is in order to get rid of the hereditary Peers. I can only say that it is a funny thing that, while the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister is conducting a great fight against the Serbs in relation to ethnic cleansing, here at home he is carrying out a great fight in the House of Lords in relation to hereditary cleansing. In other words, "Get rid of hereditary Peers, whatever they are: good, bad or indifferent. Let us get rid of them all. "
That is pretty pungent stuff. If that is the reason why the Bill is written as it is, it would be interesting to know. I was disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Lord, Lord Peston—and I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, joined in too—tried to make a monkey out of what is a
162
perfectly genuine amendment which tries to help the Government avoid getting themselves into a position they would regret.
Lord Richard: I seem to remember a proverb from my schooldays about Greeks bearing gifts. There are not many Greeks in this Chamber but, if my Latin were good enough, I would try to re-translate it to, "Beware the Earls bearing gifts".
With great respect to the Opposition, it is a most extraordinary and rather fatuous position they are arguing. What is it? They have put down an amendment which on the face of it does exactly what the Government wish to do. They have done that not by way of an amendment to Clause 1, but by inserting a new clause which is clear and specific and which they say is unarguable; namely, that hereditary Peers should not receive a Writ of Summons to come and serve in your Lordships' House. The amendment is not tabled by one of their lawyers in an attempt to tidy up the drafting; not a bit of it. It stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, two Mackays and the legal spokesman for the Opposition, Lord Kingsland. Yet, in reply to my perfectly simple question, "does it represent the view of the Opposition, I am told, "Of course it does not. It is merely an attempt to assist the Government to make sure they get it absolutely right."
If the Opposition are opposed to the Bill, I would have thought that the result they might have wished was one in which the Bill was not totally clear; one in which there could be a recourse to the courts. Indeed, if the Opposition mean what they say about opposing the Bill—root and branch, I think someone said at one stage—a situation in which it was capable of being overturned by the courts is one I would have thought the Opposition would grasp with both hands.
With great respect to those sitting opposite, I do not think that they mean what they say. I do not believe that they are in business to assist the Government. If, therefore, the amendment does not reflect the official position of the Conservative Party and if the Opposition do not mean that which is contained within it they should not have proposed it.
Viscount Cranborne: I find myself in rather a distressed state after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I thought that we had established an agreeable double act in your Lordships' House in recent weeks in which we would be able to fly over both Front Benches and agree, in a sort of moueing fashion with each other, on virtually everything to do with reform of your Lordships' House. However, having listened to the noble Lord's as usual eloquently expressed strictures, I find myself profoundly in disagreement with what he had to say. It is important that those among your Lordships who, like me, are not lawyers should intervene in lawyers' disputes. It is in the best traditions of Parliament that non-lawyers should contribute.
Listening to the Government and their supporters, I must confess to a degree of astonishment at the line they taken. It sounds increasingly an Alice-in-Wonderland sort of proposition. It does not matter what the legislation actually says, "it means what

163
I says it means". Humpty Dumpty. I thought that we still preserved, in this Parliament at least a respect for the details of legislation.
I recall, on the first day of the Committee stage, a number of us were reproved by the Government Front Bench for making what were considered to be Second Reading speeches. The implication of that criticism is that in Committee your Lordships concentrate on what your Lordships do so well, which is to consider the detail of the legislation. If we are to consider the detail of the legislation, which is something that the Government are encouraging us to do, I suspect that the way we do so is by concentrating on the meaning of the language.
For the Government Benches therefore—led by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard—suddenly to say to your Lordships that it does not particularly matter what is said in the detail of the Bill and so long as the Government's ultimate intentions are made clear we can rely on the courts to put it right is an abnegation of the true purpose of Parliament and of legislation in the first place. I am sure that one moment's thought on the part of both noble Lords, who in their own respective ways are not only experienced parliamentarians but also very distinguished lawyers, would convince them—without any help from me—that, with the greatest respect, they really are talking nonsense.
I am not a lawyer, but I am very well aware of the reason why I sit in your Lordships' House. I sit here not because I am a hereditary Peer. I am not. I sit here by virtue of an extraordinarily arcane device which has occasioned a good deal of ribaldry, not least among a number of your Lordships opposite but also, dare I say it, among the denizens of Grub Street. That arcane device, your Lordships will remember, is a Writ of Acceleration. The fact that I am allowed to sit and speak in your Lordships' House, as I understand it, is purely as a result of my being in receipt of that Writ.
Lord Barnett: There is something here which I find very hard to understand. The noble Lord receives a Writ of Summons. Can he tell us why he receives it?
Viscount Cranborne: If the noble Lord cares to look once again at the amendment proposed by my noble friends on the Opposition Front Bench, I think he will see that the implied point he makes has been taken aboard in the drafting. It is always a pleasure to be barracked by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. Indeed, I am barracked very frequently by the noble Lord not only in your Lordships' Chamber but also in the corridors. If I may say so, it is one of the things that draws me back like a magnet to your Lordships' House. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to make my point in my own way.
In the drafting of their amendment my noble friends have said, as no doubt the noble Lord has noticed, that no one shall receive a Writ of Summons to attend the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage. It is implied by the noble Lord that my connection with the hereditary peerage is what enables me to receive
164
the Writ of Summons. That is indeed so. But it is no more, I submit to your Lordships and to the noble Lord in particular, than what my noble friends are saying. What they suggest in the amendment is that Writs of Summons are at the moment issued to members of the hereditary peerage by virtue of their having a hereditary peerage.
With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who, I understand, is the only begetter of this particular piece of legislation, and no doubt because of the hurry in which it was drafted, he perhaps swallowed a word or two when he came to consulting parliamentary counsel on the drafting of stage one. If we are here by virtue of a hereditary peerage, I submit that Clause 1 as drafted is no more than a statement of the existing position. It does not change it one whit. If, on the other hand, we believe that legislation should say what it actually means rather than what the government of the day suggest it should mean—it would be an extremely dangerous road to do down despite Pepper v. Hart, and so on—it would be more sensible to incorporate the reality in Clause 1.
The other argument deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, not only in his remarks today but in previous interventions, seems to me remarkable. If I understand the noble Lord correctly, he is saying that however one drafts it the effect is the same: hereditary Peers will no longer be allowed to sit. That is the Government's intention: we all accept that. Equally, the noble Lord has asked: is it not somewhat odd for the Opposition effectively to make a suggestion which makes legislation, with which we assume they disagree, work better? In putting forward that argument, the noble Lord is making an uncharacteristically partisan point. He has been a most distinguished leader of your Lordships' House, and indeed leader of the Opposition. During the course of my extremely agreeable association with the noble Lord in both those incarnations, I felt it was clear that the noble Lord understood that there was a difference between party politics and the constitutional role of your Lordships' House. It seems to me that a clarity of view of that distinction has distinguished your Lordships' House and its Members rather more than it has Members of another place. Your Lordships are well able to distinguish between a view about the desirability of a policy, whether or not a party policy, and whether the legislation is drafted in such a way as to deliver a government policy, desirable or not, in the most effective way.
For the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to say, that by implication the measure as drafted may not be satisfactory but at least it can be sorted out in the courts seems to be accepting a surrender of the proper role of Committee stage in a parliamentary process which is breathtaking—and certainly breathtaking coming from someone of his distinction.
I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could help us a great deal if he were able to say that he agrees that a number of us sit here because we are connected with, or are, hereditary Peers; but we have the right to sit here because we have received a Writ. If the Government wish to abolish the right of

165
hereditary Peers to sit here, perhaps the legislation which brings that desire into effect should reflect the mechanism which brings that about rather than the general practice, with the Government saying, "It may not be accurate, but you know what I mean, and that is good enough".
4 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I read earlier today Mr. Lofthouse's opinion. It is an incredibly learned opinion and I am persuaded that he is correct in saying that membership of your Lordships' House results not from a peerage alone but from that coupled with a Writ of Summons. Mr. Lofthouse concludes from that that the Bill probably fails to achieve what we all know is its purpose.
In the best tradition of the Bar, the opinion leads by a process of impeccable logic from a correct premise to a wholly fantastic conclusion: that the Bill applies only to hereditary Peers who have not yet: taken their seat during this present Parliament. Mr. Lofthouse's opinion wholly fails to see the wood for the trees. The fact is that we all know what the Bill means. The Conservatives know it as well as anyone else in your Lordships' House. It is of course true that one can never be quite sure that judges will know what is common knowledge to everyone else, but I believe that even the most remote and learned judge—there are not so many of them around as there used to be—would have no difficulty in deciding that this Bill, if passed as it stands, removes the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, refers to the phrase, "beware Greeks bearing gifts". He should have taken into account the fact that in legal debates classical allusions have been forbidden by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. However, I suggest that this debate is not worthy of any further time of the Committee.
Lord Davies of Coity: Like the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, I am not a lawyer either. But if the amendment were carried it would shift the emphasis away from hereditary peerages to the Writ of Summons. The amendment states:
"No-one shall receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords by virtue of an hereditary peerage".
If the amendment were passed, does it not mean that those who have already received Writs would remain here?
Lord Peston: Before my noble and learned friend replies, I wish to make two points. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that many of us here are laymen. He is, and I am. We have to be careful about involvement in these issues. Despite my earlier acerbic remarks, I always accept the bona fides of the party opposite. Perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, that I stand second to no one in wishing Bills to be properly drafted.
There is an easy solution to these matters. There is at least one other expert person on whom we can rely here; namely, my noble and learned friend the Lord
166
Chancellor. I, for one, would like to hear his definitive response. I am tempted to think that it will be conclusive.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may assist a little by reference to my own experience. My late father died in 1960 when I was only 19 years of age. I succeeded to the title. I became Lord Trefgarne the very moment my father passed away. But I was not allowed at that point to sit in your Lordships' House. I had, first, to prove that I was indeed my father's son. That, happily, presented no difficulty. I received a letter from the then noble and learned Lord Chancellor saying that he was satisfied that I was who I was and that he would have authorised a Writ to have been issued had I been 21. So clearly I was a hereditary Peer at that point but not allowed to sit in your Lordships' House because I had not received a Writ of Summons and was not entitled to receive one at that age.
I think that that underlines the point which Mr. Lofthouse has made: that it is the Writ of Summons which gets us into the House, not just being a hereditary Peer. I therefore support the amendment proposed by my noble friend.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has confirmed that this amendment arises out of the opinion of a member of the Bar, Mr. John Lofthouse, dated 14th April 1999. I do not in any way desire to detract from Mr. Lofthouse's standing at the Bar. His learning in peerage law—and some peerage law is very ancient; it is a very arcane area of the law—is well acknowledged. But, just for the record, he is not a Queen's Counsel.
His opinion has been widely circulated. His basic contention is that the Bill in its present form will not be effective in excluding hereditary Peers from your Lordships' House. If that were right it would cause great concern to the Government. We should then be welcoming Mr. Lofthouse's opinion as a gift from the gods and setting parliamentary draftsmen to work to make the Bill effective.
No one is more grateful than me for all the assistance: that I receive from every and any quarter. Life is so difficult that I could not say otherwise. But 11 have considered Mr. Lofthouse's opinion with very great care and I am satisfied that the Bill is effective as it stands without the need for any amendment.
The issue is whether the courts would construe the Bill (when it passes) to give effect to its well known purpose. The judges, in common with everyone in the country, know what the Government's purpose and objective is. It is to remove the totality of the rights and duties which members of the hereditary peerage have in their capacity as Members of the House of Lords; and the courts would unquestionably construe the Act to give effect to its manifest and well known objective, which is that the totality of these rights and duties will be removed, without any exception at all, once the Act comes into force, in terms of the Bill as now expressed.

167
The Bill has great merit in that it is expressed in the plainest of plain English so that anyone can understand. Just as Clause 1 is admirably clear, so also are Clauses 4(1) and 4(2). Clause 4(1) provides, subject to the stated exceptions, that the Act,
"shall come into force at the end of the Session of Parliament in which it is passed".
Clause 4(2) provides that,
"any writ of summons issued for the present Parliament … shall not have effect after that Session".
Thus, Clause 4(2) provides that the consequence of Clause 1 and Clause 4(1) will be that, at the end of the Session of Parliament in which the Bill is passed, any Writ of Summons issued for the present Parliament in right of a hereditary peerage, shall thereupon become null and void in law. That, for the avoidance of any doubt at all—although I am confident that there is none—is the meaning the Government intend for the words in Clause 4(2),
"shall not have effect after that Session".
The Government's objective in choosing the words in Clause 1,
"by virtue of a hereditary peerage",
is, by the intended breadth of the words, to make it plain beyond any doubt that the Bill when it passes ends the membership of this House by any Member whose membership is in any way connected with, or related to, a hereditary peerage. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will make the same point when he comes to reply for the Government to Amendments Nos.19, 68 and 155, which are in the names of noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
Mr. Lofthouse's argument is that Clause 1 is ineffective as membership of the House of Lords is not "by virtue of a hereditary peerage", but "by obedience to a Writ of Summons". Obedience to a Writ of Summons, however, is the mechanism by which a seat is assumed, but it is not membership of the House of Lords itself. Clause 1 is intended without any qualification to preclude membership of the House of Lords by any person whose membership, if not so precluded, would be in any way connected with, or related to, any hereditary peerage.
I confidently advise your Lordships that that is what the Bill intends and means and that that is how the courts would construe it in order to give effect to its manifest and well known objective. For myself, I am clear that the purpose and objective of Clause 1 of the Bill is in no way ambiguous or obscure. But, lest the contrary view be subsequently argued in any court, or any court be minded to conclude that Clause 1 is in any respect whatever ambiguous or obscure, or lest that be argued pursuant to any Petition for Admission or Writ of Summons, let me say on behalf of the Government that for their part they regard the purpose and objective of Clause 1 to be precisely as I have just stated it to be.
I regard this amendment as having given me, on behalf of the Government, a useful opportunity to put to rest any misunderstanding about the straightforward
168
purpose and objective which Clause 1 is intended to secure. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: Before my noble friend replies, will the noble and learned Lord explain the issue a little further? Clause 4(2) states that,
"any writ of summons issued for the present Parliament in right of a hereditary peerage shall not have effect after that Session".
However, the noble and learned Lord did not reply properly to the fact that a Writ of Summons invites a person to come here. Once he comes here, that Writ is expended and therefore it is not possible to halt the application of the Writ half-way through. If the noble and learned Lord wanted to travel from London to Edinburgh, bought a ticket and boarded the train, he would not think much of it if he were thrown out at Peterborough.
The noble and learned Lord did not address that issue. However, he did say—I found it alarming—that the courts will consider the Bill in the way that the Government want. He said that the Government "intend" this that and the other. Parliament intends and the courts will decide what Parliament itself has decided on.
The Lord Chancellor: With great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I believe that his final observation is not worthy of his general observations to this House; nor is it representative of him. I made it absolutely clear—I chose my language with deliberate care—when I said that the Government, for their part, regard the purpose and objective of Clause 1 to be precisely as I have just stated it to be. I repeat, "for their part". It is for the courts, of course, to construe this Act when it comes before them as the courts think right. Nothing that I said was intended to, or could, derogate from that.
Clause 4(2) will primarily bite upon a Peer who has received a Writ of Summons for the present Parliament, but has not taken his seat. In accordance with Clause 4(2), if the Bill passes in this Session, it will come into force at the end of the Session. Then the Writ of Summons not responded to will become null and void as a matter of law.
Lord Rees: Could the noble and learned Lord explain a particular point arising out of Clause 4(2)? To what degree and in what way is a Writ of Summons effective during the course of a Parliament in relation to a Peer who has accepted the Writ and taken his seat?
The Lord Chancellor: The effect of Clause 1 is that a Peer who has received a Writ of Summons and taken his seat ceases upon the Bill's coming into force to be entitled to be a Member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.
The Earl of Dudley: I have some trepidation in taking on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but I do not believe that I am here by duty,

169
inheritance or privilege, as he suggested; I believe that I am here by custom. I had been waiting for an eminent historian to make the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that for several centuries after Henry III called the first Parliament only a handful of Peers were summoned by Writ of the monarch to Parliament. They were generally those who were the monarch's choice. That prevailed until Tudor times. Indeed, it was not until Tudor times—when I think it was the responsibility of Thomas Cromwell, who wanted to pack Parliament in order to get through his statutes—that more hereditary Peers began to be called, and finally all hereditary Peers began to be summoned to Parliament by the monarch. So it is not a question of right or duty as a hereditary Peer; it is a question of custom.
There is a very strong point about this question of Writ of Summons; that if the Bill is directed towards the hereditary aspect of the peerage it may well, whatever the Lord Chancellor says, have a weakness, whereas if it is directed towards the Writ of Summons, it may be stronger and more cogent than at present.
The Lord Chancellor: In my opinion, the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, is in his seat by virtue of a hereditary peerage which inheres in him. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, is here by virtue of a hereditary peerage which inheres in someone else—I believe his father. He was entitled to a Writ of Acceleration because of the good fortune that his distinguished father is entitled to many peerages. They were available to the noble Viscount when it was desired that he assume a seat in the House, and a Writ of Acceleration was available to him. The words,
"by virtue of a hereditary peerage",
in Clause 1 embrace the position of both the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne.
Earl Ferrers: May I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—
Noble Lords: No!
Earl Ferrers: I think I am entitled to do so. After all, my noble friend Lord Dudley said that he was frightened of asking the noble and learned Lord a question. I am not frightened of asking him a question, even if I am intellectually decapitated in the process.
The fact is that we are all hereditary Peers and life Peers—here by virtue of having received a Writ of Summons. If the Bill says, as the noble and learned Lord says it does, that as from a certain date hereditary Peers will have their Writ of Summons, as it were, removed from them—although for the reasons that have already been stated, that is impossible—how do the Government equate the fact that some Peers will have their Writs of Summons continued with the fact that some will have them truncated? Once that is done, do we not enter into the realms of hybridity?
Perhaps I may take the noble and learned Lord back to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill—the nationalisation Bill. He will not remember that, because he was too involved in what he described as the "fat-cat
170
circuit", but I happened to be involved with the Bill when it was before the House. There was a row over it because it did not distinguish between those involved in ship-repairing and those involved in that business. So, some people were caught by the Bill and some were not. It was therefore hybrid. If the noble and learned Lord's premise is fulfilled and the Writ of Summons can be removed from some Peers but not from others, I respectfully suggest that that might put it into the realms of hybridity.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, causes me to look back with gratitude and respect for the many years during which I was a member of the circuit which he chose to name in the way that he did. I readily acknowledge that the noble Earl is in no way afraid to ask me questions. I welcome them, and I am in no way afraid to answer them.
The point about Clause 4(2) is that it causes to be null and void Writs of Summons issued for the present Parliament in right of a hereditary peerage after the end of the session in which this Bill passes. Her Majesty has put her prerogative at the disposal of Parliament, and there is no question but that Clause 4(2) has the effect described.
Clause 1 precludes from membership of the House of Lords anyone who is a member by virtue of a hereditary peerage, who will by definition be here pursuant to the mechanism of a Writ of Summons.
Lord Glenarthur: As the noble and learned. Lord the Lord Chancellor failed to answer it, I wonder whether he would pick up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, who referred to a judgment made some time in the last century which specifically seemed to imply, if I understood him correctly, that the Writ of Summons is paramount in this case, arid not the Letters Patent or anything else. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has not answered that point at all.
The Lord Chancellor: I have no intention of getting; involved in arcane questions of peerage law. What the Bill does is to address the substance of the matter, which is membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage, a concept which the ordinary man in the street and the judges will have no difficulty in construing.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor makes that perfectly plain, but is it not a matter of fact that if this is looked at in more depth it is seen to be a matter more for the courts to interpret than he has said? He cannot ride roughshod over history in all this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, put a legitimate point which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has manifestly failed to answer.
The Lord Chancellor: I have just answered it. The Bill will take effect, and will be construed by the courts, in accordance with its manifest intention and effect. We do not dictate to the courts. On the contrary, we hold them in the highest regard for their independence. But

171
it is my duty from this Dispatch Box to state clearly and unequivocally what the Government's intention, purpose and objective is by reason of Clause 1.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Put in a sentence, it repeals settled peerage law on this point. It annuls the previous peerage law as it exists.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not accept that. The background may be previous peerage law, but I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that in this matter Parliament is sovereign and our manifesto commitment is as clear and unequivocal as I believe the Bill to be.
Lord Trefgarne: It seems to me that the cat is now out of the bag. Whatever may be the view and, indeed, the wish of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, it seems to me now inevitable that one or other of the 700 or so hereditary Peers who will be excluded from the House of Lords by the Bill, if it is passed in its present form, will go to a court to get his position reinstated. Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say whether that will be subject to legal aid?
The Lord Chancellor: I would hesitate to say that it would not be in the public interest for any such point to be tested in the courts, but I doubt whether anyone who might embark on such an exercise, which I confidently predict would be doomed to failure, would qualify for legal aid.
The Earl of Northesk: I too am not a lawyer, but I should like to put one point to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. As a non-lawyer, I must of course respect his conviction of the purpose of the Bill, but in respect of the Lofthouse opinion, if there is any credibility in it whatsoever, would it not be the case that recourse would not necessarily operate under the court system, but would, according to Standing Orders and the precedent of the Earl of Bristol case, involve a direct petition to the Crown?
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I could embark on a learned disquisition on the many ways in which this issue may become justiciable but that would trespass upon the patience of the Committee. But wherever this matter falls for judicial determination, since Her Majesty has put her prerogative at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill, my confident expectation would be, on any petition for admission or Writ of Summons, that the Crown, in the exercise of its prerogative, would follow the law.
The Earl of Caithness: Like my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, I was a hereditary Peer before I received a Writ of Summons. If my memory serves me right—and this is the point I ask the noble and learned Lord to clarify—unless I applied for a Writ of Summons within a set time frame I was prevented from applying
172
for it in the future. Therefore, I could have remained a hereditary Peer but not had the Writ of Summons. Am I right about that or did I have to apply to become a hereditary Peer and apply within a certain timescale?
The Lord Chancellor: I cannot answer that point off the top of my head. But I should be very surprised if there were a time limit.
Lord Hughes: I may be asking an unnecessary question but I notice that a subsequent amendment, Amendment No.121, seeks to delete Clause 4(2). If Amendments Nos.10A and 121 went into the Bill, would that mean that all those hereditary Peers who presently have a Writ of Summons would remain until the end of this Parliament?
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps we should address that matter when Amendment No.121 is arrived at.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have had an interesting debate. At the risk of crossing swords with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I do not believe that these are arcane points. They are important. Equally, I do not believe that government Ministers, certainly in the past, took the attitude, "Even if we are wrong, it does not matter. We will make the issue clear from a Pepper v. Hart point of view and the courts will know what we mean the legislation to do and not what it says it does. "
I make no apology for the amendment being brought before the Committee. The Government do not believe that it is necessary. That is fine. That is their view. It is your Lordships' right to question the detail of legislation and ask whether it does what the Government want it to do. I do not take the criticisms made earlier by some Government Back-Benchers that somehow or other that is an odd position for the Opposition to adopt. It has been the position not only of oppositions but also of Members on all sides to probe the Government and ask whether they have a clause or part of a Bill absolutely correct. We may not agree about the principles or objectives, but what is said on the face of the Bill should be totally consistent with what the Government want.
We all know what the Government want. At one stage, I wondered whether the Government should introduce a Bill which says, "The law will be whatever it says in the manifesto. " I congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for not introducing the manifesto.
Noble Lords: He did; he did.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Oh, did he? I am sorry. I must have been too busy trying to write a note about something he said previously. I do not know whether the manifesto is a document which will hold up in court. I think possibly not.
First, I should apologise for calling Mr. John Lofthouse a QC. I understand that in legal circles such matters are extremely important. I do not know about that; it is what I am told.

173
I am not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, brought to the party, so to speak, apart from—I hope I recorded it accurately—the tradition of the Bar writing a note which leads from a correct premise to a wholly fantastic conclusion. I am not in a position to argue about that. The noble Lord will know all about it. I wonder whether his clients know that that is in the tradition of the Bar.
Lord Goodhart: I have written many such opinions myself.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Far be it from me to make any further comment. Our proposed new clause and Clause 4(2) work together. I find it odd that in Clause I the Government do not mention a Writ of Summons and yet in Clause 4(2) they home in on the Writ of Summons. From a layman's point of view, which I realise will fall far below the standards of the parliamentary draftsman, it seems to me that instead of bringing in the Writ of Summons Clause 4(2) could simply provide that anyone who claims membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage shall not be a Member after that Session. Why is the Writ of Summons brought in in Clause 4(2) and yet it is not felt necessary to bring it in at the beginning? It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not answer that question.
As my noble friend Lord Glenarthur pointed out, the noble and learned Lord did not answer the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, about the view of Lord Cranworth that what gives every noble Lord his right to sit here is not his Patent of Nobility but the Writ of Summons which he is entitled to in consequence of that Patent.
I do not wish to deal further with the argument. We have established from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor an extremely clear view which he has stated definitively, perhaps with a view to Pepper v. Hart, as regards the Government's intentions, almost regardless of what appears on the face of the Bill. We shall obviously study that with care.
I remember listening to an explanation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the distinctions in court parlance between "with respect", "with the utmost respect" and "with the greatest respect". The more superlatives you used, the more rubbishy you thought the arguments were. I merely say, with, I think, great respect, that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 [Exclusion of hereditary peers]:
Lord Gray Lord Gray moved Amendment No.11:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to section (Peers of Scotland)")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No.11 is a paving amendment for Amendment No.50 and Amendment No.65 is consequential—
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): Because of the movement and noise, it is impossible for us to hear, on all sides of the
174
Committee, what the noble Lord is saying. 'That is not fair to the noble Lord and it is not helpful to the Committee.
Lord Gray: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I shall recommence. Amendment No.11 is a paving amendment for Amendment No.50 and Amendment No.65 is consequential. I hope that we are entering quieter and calmer waters than we have enjoyed in the last debate. This debate certainly promises to be less erudite.
The issue on which I now ask the Committee to focus is that of Scottish representation in the interim House. We have been much concerned with the generality of the Bill and its constitutional consequences. Here, in these amendments, we encounter an aspect which has a specific impact on the constitutional settlement, an impact on the Treaty of the Union.
On Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Reay reminded the House that from the Union of the Parliaments until 1963 Scotland was represented in your Lordships' House by 16 elected Peers. For noble Lords who may be unfamiliar with that representative peer scheme, I shall explain it in outline only because it is the source from which my amendments stem.
While various enactments over the years dealt with detail, the principle of elected representation was enshrined in the Treaty of Union. Article XXII of the Acts of Union established the basis for representation of Scotland in the Westminster Parliament. That article laid down that that representation should include 16 of the Peers of Scotland, with the words:
"16 shall be the number to sit and vote in the House of Lords".
Further, it expressly stated that they were to represent Scotland, with the words:
"by whom Scotland is to be represented".
They were elected to represent Scotland, not themselves, as other hereditary Peers did and do.
Those who stood for election by their fellows were Peers of Scotland only, while the electorate included, additionally, those Peers of Scotland who also held dignities in the peerage of England, and later on, in the peerages of Great Britain and the United Kingdom. Election was for the duration of a single parliament and, when necessary, by-elections were held. Election was by open ballot and after each election this House was notified of the result. The list of those chosen was read out here, after which the representative Peers could take their seats.
The system ended with the passing of the Peerages Act 1963. By virtue of Section 4 of that Act, all Peers of Scotland became entitled to a Writ of Summons. With Clause 3 of this Bill, the Government propose to repeal that 1963 enfranchisement. I have doubts as to the effectiveness of the proposed repeal which I shall raise later when we come to Amendment No.28.
In seeking to repeal the 1963 provision, the Government are effectively proposing to abrogate a fundamental provision of the Treaty of Union. They offer nothing in lieu, although they will be well aware,

175
I am sure, of the effect of their proposed repeal. Amendment No.50 suggests a way of avoiding such an undesirable consequence.
It is important to recognise that when, in 1963, Parliament voted to increase Scottish representation in your Lordships' House, that decision enhanced the Union Treaty provision and detracted nothing from the significance of the representative scheme. That there were repeals of some wording in Article XXII and of some later enactments was neither here nor there. They were merely consequential and necessary to enable the enlargement of Scottish representation in this House. Expanding the franchise was in line with the increase in Scottish Members of another place since it was set at 45 by Article XXII, 293 years ago.
The salient point, central to my argument, is that the decision taken by Parliament in 1963 was one which preserved and strengthened the Union in terms of its significance for your Lordships' House—and Scotland.
The Government should not attempt to undermine or destroy that now. They need to think again and we should make them do so. As on account of past repeals we cannot simply turn back the legislative clock, I suggest that Amendment No.50 is a simple and straightforward way of entrenching an important element of Scottish representation here during the lifetime of the interim House. It cannot completely re-enact the 1963 provision, but it goes as close as I think can be achieved in this Bill.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have included the word "only" in my draft. It might otherwise have been interpreted as enfranchising every hereditary Peer with a Scottish title rather than those who are Peers of Scotland alone.
At a time when devolution is shortly to become fact, it is surely not the moment to draw back from a link between this House and Scotland forged at the making of the Treaty of Union. The Government have repeatedly stressed their support for the United Kingdom's continuance. It seems singularly contradictory and rash to seek to legislate in a way which sends out such a very different signal. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, will not press the amendment. I am as anxious as he is to ensure that Scotland is adequately and, frankly, even over-represented in this House, but I do not think that this is the way to do it.
This amendment would preserve the automatic link between birth and the right to be a Member of this House of Parliament. That, therefore, goes against the whole thrust of the Government's Bill. There are other ways of ensuring that Scotland is adequately represented in this House. I find my Scottish compatriots who are hereditary Peers even more agreeable than the other hereditary Peers in this House. I am quite sure that their ability is such, if the Weatherill amendment is passed, that they will stand more than an even chance of being chosen as the survivors. Quite apart from that, I hope that subsequent governments will always pay attention
176
to the undoubted talents that lie within the ranks of the hereditary peerage in selecting life Peers. However, the important point is that they will be in this House on their merits, not on the merits of ancestors and sometimes, frankly, on the demerits of ancestors.
Harking back to the Act of Union ignores the fact that much has happened since then. I refer, for example, to the Reform Act 1832 and the growing power of the House of Commons. Scotland is represented in Parliament primarily through the House of Commons. The noble Lord referred to the growth in the number of Scottish seats. It is equally possible that in future the number of Scottish seats may decrease. I, for one, would not regard that as contrary to the Act of Union.
It is important to ask oneself why we should make a special example of the Scots. Are we really envisaging a situation where we have 16 Scottish hereditary Peers here and absolutely no English hereditary Peers? That, surely, would be equally contrary to the Act of Union.
I believe that any government (or any other nominating body which may be empowered to nominate) will be anxious in future to ensure not only a geographical spread of Peers nominated to sit in this Chamber, but a spread of interest groups as well so that this House can continue to serve the nation well by being able to draw on a reservoir of experience in all fields. I respectfully suggest that the Scottish life Peers will still be Members of this House and that their number can be added to. I therefore hope that the noble Lord's concerns about adequate representation for Scotland can be easily taken care of without recourse to this amendment.
Lord Forbes: I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Gray. They are very important as they concern the proper representation of Scotland in your Lordships' House. The Act of Union was very important. It made provision for 16 Scottish Peers who had received their titles prior to the Act to be elected and to take their seats to represent Scotland in your Lordships' House.
The important point is that the 16 were elected by their fellow Scottish Peers each time there was a new Parliament. I can vouch for the election. It was both simple and dignified. I was first elected to come to your Lordship's House and take my seat in 1955. Therefore I happen to be one of the few still left to have been elected as a Scottish representative Peer to sit in your Lordships' House. I was democratically elected. I did not take my seat by virtue of being a hereditary Peer.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Would the noble Lord say that the electorate on that occasion were democratic?
Lord Forbes: The point is that I was democratically elected, apart from the electorate. The Act of Union ensured that Scotland was properly represented in your Lordships' Chamber, and that is even more important today as a result of devolution and the fact that the Union itself is under threat.
Two questions must be answered by the Government. First, do the Government intend ensuring that Scotland is properly represented if any change is made to the

177
composition of this Chamber? Secondly, are Articles 12 and 13 of the Act of Union, dealing with Scottish representation, still on the statute book?
The Government have stated time and again that they stand by the Union. On that matter I wholeheartedly agree. The Union is vital. However, we would be deluding ourselves if we failed to recognise that the Union will be under considerable stress, both from devolution and the lack of Scottish representation in your Lordships' House as envisaged by this Bill. Our strength lies in unity. Make no mistake, if Scotland were to separate, that would not only be the greatest disaster for Scotland, but also for England. If Her Majesty's Government seriously wish to preserve the Union, they should accept these amendments dealing with the election of Peers to represent Scotland in your Lordships' House.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Will the noble Lord tell the Committee when he was last elected under the system he described, and how many times he was elected under that system?
Lord Forbes: I was last elected in 1959.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: In spite of the fact that Scotland is shortly to have its own Parliament for domestic purposes, there will remain quite a number of reserved matters—too many some of us think—and a number of them will have to be legislated for, discussed and agreed to by both another place and this Chamber.
I have just ceased to be secretary of the Scottish Peers' Association. But before doing so I went through the membership of the association and discovered that out of 147 members, 87 were hereditary and 60 were life Peers. I then went through the life Peers with precisely the question of the adequate representation of Scotland in the future in mind. I discovered that a considerable number rarely, if ever, attended or were so deeply involved in other business in Scotland that it would probably not be possible for them to represent adequately the interests of Scotland in this Chamber. That needs to be carefully looked at by the Government before they kick out all the hereditary Scots Peers, many of whom have been regular in attendance and assiduous in debate.
Beyond that, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, raises serious questions—as did the previous amendment—in relation to the drafting of the Bill before us.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: It has been said on a number of occasions that those of us in Scotland are well known for keeping the sabbath and anything else we can lay our hands on. That is a commendable principle, but it can be stretched too far. To try and hang on to the hereditary principle in this House when the English are losing theirs, within 10 days of us securing the restoration of our Parliament, is an untenable proposition. For that reason we on these Benches cannot support these amendments.
178
In moving his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Gray, was absolutely right in his description of the reasons why the 16 elected Peers were part of the Act of Union. But in the real sense in the legislation of the Scotland Act we have been redefining the Act of Union. Therefore the 16 hereditary Peers have no place in that new scheme of things.
Furthermore, I believe I am right in saying that the White Paper and the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, looking at the longer-term of this House, are obliged to consider the whole question of the relationship between this House and the devolved Parliament. In the longer run therefore that issue is already being considered. In relation to the short-run—the transitional House—it is the case that at the last count there were six or seven Members of your Lordships' Chamber standing for election to the Scottish Parliament. Of those I would hazard that at least three have a reasonable prospect of being elected, as it happens one from each party. Therefore the idea that we will lose any link between this House and the Scottish Parliament is simply not true.
The right course to take to enter proper democracy is not to try to revive something that was dispensed with a couple of decades ago. This is not the moment to try to revive a well justified but now archaic principle from the early years of the 18th century.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The last three speakers pointed up a problem which the Government will have to face. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon, said that, whether or not this amendment is accepted, there will be Scots Peers here to represent Scotland in the interim House. That is true. But the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, gave us the figures—I was not sure of the number of life Peers as compared with the number of hereditary Peers from Scotland—and, as she said, there will be a considerable shortage of Peers to represent the interests of Scotland in discussions in this Chamber as an interim House if the amendment is not accepted.
As the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said, several of our number are standing for election to the Scots Parliament and some will doubtless get in. They will not have much time to come here. So there will indeed be a shortage. Therefore, if the amendment is not accepted by the Government, can the Minister give us some assurance that there will be an attempt to increase the number of Peers from Scotland in the interim House to ensure that the interests of Scotland are not neglected in that Chamber, the duration of which we still do not know?
5 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The Peers' election to which the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, referred, and in which he is still one of the very few Members of this House to have taken part, worked extremely well because everyone knew everybody and everyone knew everything about everybody. As a result, we never had a dud elected; indeed, the "odds and sods" simply did not get elected. We had sensible people who were prepared to do the job. They undertook to do it by offering their names for election. In those days it was a considerable personal sacrifice because there were no

179
expenses and certainly no allowances at that time. Indeed, I do not believe that there were even travelling expenses. People did it as voluntary work and they did it very well.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Most of my predecessors came to this place as representative Peers, with one exception upon whom I shall not waste too much time. In fact, in the end, he did not present himself for election. I speak in support of the proposition put forward by my noble friend Lord Gray. Whatever happens now—that is to say, however well the Scottish Parliament performs and however intelligently Whitehall responds to it (something that I always doubt) there is bound to be a degree of tension between Edinburgh and Whitehall. That is something I deplore, although I am happy to see from press reports that the likelihood at present is that the Nationalists will not do very well in the coming elections in Scotland. Thank God!
There is bound to be some tension willy-nilly between Edinburgh and Whitehall. It is greatly in Scotland's and in Britain's interests that the Scottish peerage should contain representatives within earshot of Whitehall. Therefore, I support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Monro of Langholm: We are most grateful to my noble friend Lord Gray for tabling the amendment because it has given us the chance to express a view upon the points so nobly put by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. After the new Parliament comes into being, I know that there will be much less legislation going through this place than has been the case in the past as regards Scotland. Indeed, it will only be legislation on foreign affairs, defence and one or two other matters that are for this Chamber rather than the Scottish Parliament.
However, the question which comes to my mind is whether or not there will be sufficient Scottish based life Peers to carry out the work in this Chamber. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, indicated the number involved. In fact, one could boil it down to the fact that about 5 per cent of the Chamber would be life Peers coming from Scotland, which is not a large number.
I was not impressed by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel. I say that because it is to be hoped that there will be one or two life Peers returning here who will also be members of the new Scottish Parliament. But if the polls are right and the overall majorities one way or another are going to be so tight, I do not suppose that any member of the new Scottish Parliament will be able to leave Edinburgh with a safe conscience—certainly not if the whipping system has to be as severe there as it has been in the other place in the past.
Therefore, when the Minister replies to the debate, perhaps he will indicate how we can be certain that there will be a sufficient number of Scottish life Peers to look after the interests of Scotland, in conjunction with the new Scottish Parliament. After all, they will be complementary and will not be opposing each other. It is no use saying, "Oh, yes, there are bound to be enough
180
distinguished Scots who will be made life Peers"—although that may very well prove to be true—because we do not have such a provision on the face of the Bill. Therefore, we will be left with the question of whether it is up to the Prime Minister of the day, an appointments committee or, indeed, something suggested by the Royal Commission.
How can we be certain that there will be a sufficient number of Peers from Scotland; and, indeed, from Wales and Northern Ireland? How can we be sure that other aspects of the life of this United Kingdom will be expressed here by Peers from those countries? It is up to the Government Front Bench to indicate what the position will be. Then, if the Minister's explanations are unsatisfactory, we can decide whether to take the matter further. My noble friend Lord Gray has certainly given us an opportunity to discuss the old election system of the Scottish Peers which worked exceptionally well. But, in the first instance, we want to know how Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are to be represented sufficiently in this Chamber so as to satisfy those countries that they are being well looked after in the House of Lords or in its successor.
Lord Waddington: It is with some diffidence that I enter this debate; indeed, I shall not detain Members of the Committee for very long. However, there are some general points affecting all of us which must be made. I do not know how many noble Lords have given evidence to the Royal Commission on the reform of the House of Lords, but I imagine that many of them who have been thinking about the possible shape of a reformed second Chamber will have wondered what part such a Chamber might play in strengthening the Union. In other words: how, in a reformed second Chamber, could we have proper representation of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom? How, by having proper representation of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions, could we meet to some extent the demands of people living in more remote parts of the UK for as strong a voice as possible at the centre?
Of course, we have returned to our old difficulty. I must be forgiven for beating the same drum, but I have mentioned these points on many occasions and rarely received even the beginnings of a reply. As a result of the way in which the Government have decided to proceed, we all now know that a Chamber will be created which will either be composed of wholly nominated Peers or of largely nominated Peers with some representation from the hereditary Peers as a result of the Government's acceptance of the Weatherill amendment.
However, whether or not the Weatherill amendment is accepted, one thing is absolutely plain: no one in this place can, with his hand on his heart, say that the Chamber created by this House of Lords Bill will only be with us for a short time. Indeed, it may or it may not. As I mentioned the other day, there is certainly not the beginnings of a consensus yet as to what shape the new Chamber should take. We really must face up to what happened back in 1968 and recognise that the Chamber which will be created by this Bill may be with us for three, five, 10, 15 or even 20 years.

181
Therefore, with that background, I think it is a great pity that the Government have not already addressed their minds to a very real problem. How can this second Chamber be so constructed to ensure that there will be proper representation of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom? It is not too late for the Government to consider amendments which would graft on to the Bill specific provisions to allow for directly or indirectly elected people from the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. It is not too late for that to happen; indeed, the matter is entirely in the hands of the Government. It will be a great pity if they decide not to do so.
However, if they will not accept such amendments, I hope that they will take the opportunity of debates of this kind to lift the veil a little and tell us which way their minds are working. For example, do they envisage that, as soon as possible, the second Chamber will perhaps to a large extent be a Chamber designed to keep the kingdom united—a second Chamber which really will make sure that each constituent part of the United Kingdom is properly represented? I hope that on this occasion the Minister who is to reply to the debate will not brush all this aside. I want to know what the Government's thinking is with regard to the possibility of this so-called transitional House being with us for 10, 15 or 20 years. If it is to be with us for such a long time, the Government ought to think of amendments along the lines that I have suggested. If they are absolutely confident that the provisional House will not be with us for long, I want to know the reasons for that confidence. I do not have it myself. I have listened to the debates in the House of Commons. I cannot see for one moment the Labour Members in the House of Commons agreeing with what appears to be the majority view on the Conservative Benches; namely, that there ought to be a wholly elected second Chamber. Where is the beginnings of a consensus? If there is not the beginnings of a consensus, how on earth do the Government think that either immediately before or immediately after the next general election they will get a second Bill through Parliament? I believe they will have an uphill struggle.
If I am right in my thinking, the Government should explain to us why they think the framework for a second Chamber which is contained in this Bill is anything like adequate. I believe it is plain to most of us that it is far from adequate. It does not contain any of the constitutional safeguards which I have urged upon the House on previous occasions ought to be in a Bill of this nature. It is inadequate because it does not provide specific representation from the various constituent parts of the. United Kingdom.
I do not say that I am in favour of this particular amendment as I do not really understand all this business of representative Peers. That is not my object. However, it has given us an opportunity to ask the Government to explain their thinking as to how the constituent parts of the United Kingdom can be properly and clearly represented in a transitional House and finally in a reformed House.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, for bringing this amendment forward. I refer to one straightforward issue; namely,
182
that this Bill seems, probably by accident, to bring to an end Scotland's statutorily guaranteed representation in this House that was first laid out in Articles 22 and 23 of the treaty, and then modified by the 1963 Peerage Act, which of course allowed all the peerage of Scotland to attend. The Bill seems to bring that to an end—1707 to 1999. I wonder whether that is really the Government's intention. I shall try not to preview Amendment No.53, which I believe may supply an answer. However, it is not in the group of amendments that we are discussing. I ask the simple question: how can I explain what the Government want to do in this respect in a positive way in Scotland?
5.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: As I understand it, the Act of Union was the placing into legislative form of a bargain which took the form of the Treaty of Union. The bargain has not been reneged on. It has not been unstitched so completely as I believe the noble Lord. Lord Steel, suggested in his brief intervention because it was a bargain between two sovereign parliaments. The Parliament being created in Scotland is not in all matters sovereign. In any case that can be regarded from the point of view of governance as being an advance on the position achieved by the Act of Union as far as concerns the Scots.
The Act of 1963 was an advance on the Act of Union because it increased from 16 to a much larger number the number of Peers attending from the Scottish peerage. Had the Bill proposed merely to reduce the representation of the Scottish peerage to the level at which it had originally been instituted in this House, that would not have affected the treaty rights of the Scots. However, the Bill proposes to wipe out a particular benefit in a bargain contractually arrived at between sovereign parties and embodied in a treaty. Presumably either that was provided for in advance and there is a mechanism in the treaty and the Act for dealing with such differences—in that case I hope that the noble and learned Lord will enlighten me as to what it is—or else there was none, this was not foreseen and this measure is a breach of that treaty. It seems to me that this is an unfortunate point in history to embark on such a breach when in a year or two's time we will get the new Parliament in Scotland up and running, the Royal Commission will have reported and both Houses will have debated what the proper relationships between Westminster and Edinburgh should be. But at the moment it is, I think, a not unimportant symbolic reneging on a bargain entered into many years ago with no indication of what restitution is available.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gray, for introducing this amendment as it has given us the opportunity to have a short but interesting debate upon the representative elements of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. I cannot support this amendment because patently it is unfair that Scottish Peers should be allowed to elect from themselves a certain number to sit in this House when English, Welsh and Northern Irish hereditary Peers do not have that right.

183
I should preface those remarks by saying that I was a member of the committee of Alec Douglas-Home that reported back in the mid-1970s and recommended a membership of this House which was half elected, a quarter appointed and a quarter of all hereditary Peers elected from among themselves. I thought that was quite an attractive composition, but it is no longer on the table. Clearly that cannot be done selectively for one part of the United Kingdom although I recognise entirely the tremendous contribution that Scottish Peers have made both under the old elected system and under the non-elected system. I remember an amusing story told by Alec Douglas-Home of the process of election. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, will be able to confirm that this is how it happened. Alec Douglas-Home said that the hereditary Peers of Scotland were summoned to Edinburgh—I believe they were summoned to the Assembly House—and the senior Peer of the day did a roll call (I believe it was Lord Stair) and voices were raised in favour "yea" or "nay" as the names were called. Occasionally Lord Stair would come across a name—it may have been Macpherson of Dundee—and would say, "We cannot have him. This chap did a spell at Eton", and struck the name out. I do not know whether that happened to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, but certainly it produced a system which served this House well, but which is no longer on the table.
I believe it would be useful to know the following. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has just said in this regard. I hope that at some stage during the Committee stage Ministers will reveal some inclination as to how the different parts of the United Kingdom are to be represented not only in the interim Chamber but also in the eventual Chamber. If Ministers cannot do that on behalf of the Government, I hope that they will reveal their own personal feelings on the matter.
My own views are fairly clear. I want the eventual Chamber to be part appointed and part directly elected. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, comes from Wales. It would be interesting to hear him say how he would like to see the Principality of Wales represented in the interim House or in the eventual reformed House so that the interests of the Welsh people can be properly represented in this House. After all, they will soon have an Assembly—virtually a Parliament of their own—which is unicameral. After all, within a month Scotland will have a Parliament of its own which to all intents and purposes will be virtually independent. It will have a Prime Minister of its own and a Cabinet of its own and they will meet in Edinburgh within a month. In terms of the United Kingdom constitution, that represents a huge imbalance. There has to be some balancing feature which has not been expressed at all by the Government.
I express the hope that several others of my noble friends have expressed; namely, that at some stage during the proceedings of this Bill some Members of the Government Front Bench might indicate just a little of their feelings. As I say, if they cannot do that on behalf
184
of the Government, I hope that they will reveal their own personal feelings. I hope that is not too much to expect.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: This is a valuable amendment. I endorse the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. The effect of the Bill as drafted will be that, for the first time since 1707, there will be no statutory right of representation for Scotland in this House.
It is true that, with the advent of the Scottish Parliament and the appropriation of many matters to it, the amount of work will be reduced. However, reserved matters affecting Scotland will remain, and will fall to be dealt with by this House. At a time when the major parties are anxious to preserve the Union, it seems unfortunate that the Bill should remove the right of statutory representation for Scotland in this place. It is a matter that the Government should think worthy of consideration, even if not in the form of this amendment.
Lord Gray: I merely wish to take up one point that was made by my noble friend Lord Elton. He said that the coming into force of the 1963 Act added a number of Scottish Peers to this House. If my memory is correct, I believe that the Act added four or five—the reason being that it referred only to those Peers who had their titles before the Act of Union.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I can hardly believe some of the remarks made in this debate. It is true, as a number of speakers have said, that we need representation for Scotland which will cover reserved matters. At present, there is no logical way to achieve that. It is impossible that it should be through the hereditary Peers, given the whole aim of the Bill. While the Government are telling us about Scotland, they might touch on the point as to why on earth, in a Bill to abolish hereditary Peers, they want to preserve them while deciding how to reform this House.
The Earl of Northesk: I wish to take up points made by many noble Lords, and by my noble friend Lord Elton in particular. Put simply, my interpretation of the "audit trail" of the Bill runs along these lines. The Bill removes hereditary Peers. The repeal of Section 4 of the Peerage Act 1963 removes the statutory right of members of the Scottish peerage to sit; and the repeal of the relevant passages of the English and Scottish Act of Union of 1707, on the face of the 1963 Act, sorts out the issue of Scottish representation. On the surface, it is all very simple.
But I am less certain that the matter is so clear-cut. The audit trail that I have defined gives rise to a particularly thorny problem. One needs to return to the terms of the 1707 Act to begin to understand what could be made permissible by the enactment of this Bill. We should pay particular attention to the following passages of the 1707 Act; first:
"And it is hereby statuted and ordained, That this Act of Parliament, with the Establishment therein contained, shall be held and observed in all Time coming, as a fundamental and essential

185
Condition of any Treaty or Union to be concluded betwixt the two Kingdoms, without any Alteration thereof or Derogation thereto in any Sort for ever";
and, secondly:
"And lastly. Her Majesty enacts and declares, That all Laws and Statutes in this Kingdom, so far as they arc contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles, as above-mentioned, shall from and after the Union cease and become void".
It is of course the case that the institution of the representative Peer system is qualified on the face of the 1'707 Act with the phrasing,
"until the Parliament of Great Britain shall make further provision therein".
Equally, it is the case that "the Parliament of Great Britain" has indeed made subsequent "further provision therein"—not least in the 1963 Act. But the key words that flow from the two passages that I have cited are, in turn. "derogation" and "contrary and inconsistent".
Given the text, the presumption must be that, to be consistent with the terms of the treaty, all subsequent amendments to it must be on the side of enhancement, not diminution—that surely is the correct interpretation of the usage of "derogation" in its context. In fact, there is evidence of the validity of that view in some of the proceedings of this House. For example, it was observed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, in a debate in 1977 that:
"Under Article 18 of the Treaty of Union it is provided that the laws of Scotland which concern private right are only to he altered by the United Kingdom Parliament for the 'Evident utility of the subjects within Scotland—. —[Official Report, 27/6/77; col.902.1
Following that logic a little further, I do not seek to suggest that the Bill before the House today should "cease and become void" by virtue of being "contrary and inconsistent" with this. What I do say is that it will be freely available to anyone with a mind so to do—and we can be certain that such persons exist and may even now be actively preparing their case—to pursue an argument that the Bill, once enacted, has breached the terms of the Treaty of Union and that, therefore, the Union should cease. Referring back to the texts that I have quoted, the argument runs thus: it is a "fundamental and essential Condition" of the Union that there be no "Derogation thereto"; in the event—as with this Bill—that proposed statutory provisions give rise to such a derogation, they must be "contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms" of the treaty and Union; in turn, enactment of the inconsistency—
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I thank the noble Earl for giving way. Does he agree that if, selectively, members of the hereditary peerage in Scotland alone were to lose the right to sit in the House of Lords, that would be a breach of the Act of Union; but if the rights of hereditary Peers throughout the United Kingdom are removed, there cannot be any derogation from the Act of Union? Indeed, it would be unfair if, selectively, Scottish hereditary Peers preserved the right to sit and English hereditary Peers lost that right.
The Earl of Northesk: I take the noble Lord's point. However, there is the problem that the Act of Union says what the Act of Union says. The Act established as
186
a fundamental and essential condition that the representative peerage system shall exist. So if there is a derogation from that, we are in slight difficulty.
To resume my argument, enactment of the inconsistency of such provisions gives effect to the statutory force, "That all Laws and Statutes in this Kingdom" shall "cease and become void". Of necessity—this is the fundamental point—that must apply to the Act of Union itself. In effect, the B ill could exist as a mechanism to deliver Scottish independence via the back door. Such is the nature of the law of unintended consequences.
Lord Norton of Louth: I apologise for interrupting the noble Earl. I merely wish to make two general points following remarks by my noble friends Lord Monro and Lord Waddington in support of the principle underlying the amendments, which is to ensure that different voices of the United Kingdom are heard in this House.
There is the positive argument that has been touched upon, that ensuring that those voices continue to be heard adds to the richness of debate in this House and contributes to the experience and expertise that is a feature of this House and makes it what it is, adding to the quality it brings to the political system. The other reason why I believe it to be important—a negative reason but one that is specific to the present—is this: because, as a result of devolution, there is to be an elected Parliament in Scotland and an elected Assembly in Wales, that strengthens the case for retaining some voice for different parts of the United Kingdom in this House. Otherwise, the tendency, once the elected assemblies are in place, will be for Scotland arid Wales to become marginalised within the Westminster context. There is something of a precedent for that in Stormont. It is important that that is recognised. In order to prevent Scotland and Wales being marginalised as a result of those developments, it is important to look for some way to ensure that different parts of the United Kingdom are heard in this House.
I recognise that this amendment, because it is specific to Scotland, would not achieve that. Later amendments will address the point. As presently drafted, the Bill does not address the point. If the Government are minded to accept that some hereditary Peers are to remain in the House—I am wary about an over-formalistic approach—is there not a case for providing some mechanism that would at least ensure that the different parts of the United Kingdom have a voice in this House?
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have had a most interesting debate. There have been two strands in the debate. One strand was the whole question of Scotland's position in the House after the hereditary Peerage has been removed—especially against the background of a Scottish Parliament. The same question arose in respect of Wales and Northern Ireland, although perhaps not to the same extent because the Scottish Parliament certainly will have much greater powers and will look much more like one would think a parliament would look like than either the Assembly in Wales or

187
the Assembly in Northern Ireland. It is important to raise the point of the position of Scottish Peers—not necessarily hereditary Peers—in your Lordships' House.
Some noble Lords may sometimes think that there are too many Scottish Peers in your Lordships' House. I read in the papers that the Prime Minister thinks that he has too many Scots in the Cabinet and that after the Scottish Parliament is set up there is to be some type of ethnic cleansing of the Scots in the Cabinet and in the Government. Some of us are taking little wagers as to who will go and who will stay. Any noble Lords who wish to see me about that later are welcome to do so—especially if they are in the Government and have some inside information! The keeper of the book always likes inside information. But there is a serious point about the different component parts of the United Kingdom being properly represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
If one looks at the composition of the current House, while some of the Scots may be on their feet quite often, in purely numerical terms the Scots are not very well represented, especially by people with backgrounds in academia, medicine and the law, with the exception of the "professionals", if I may call them that, who get here by being Law Lords and politicians, and the lawyers who get here by being former Lord Advocates. The universities of Scotland, for example, are very badly represented in your Lordships' House. The medical Royal Colleges in Scotland are certainly of equal prominence to those in the south, but they are very badly represented here. Some of my noble friends have made the good point that after devolution there is a danger that Scotland will be marginalised at Westminster. That danger is underlined by the press reports that even the Prime Minister feels that he may have to remove some of the Scots from his Cabinet, not because they have done a bad job—although one or two, I suspect, have not done very well—but because they are Scots.
Lord Acton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. If, as the noble Lady. Lady Saltoun, has said, there are 60 Scottish-based life Peers, including three Mackays, does the noble Lord really think that Scotland will be marginalised?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend Lord Henley says, "Not with three Mackays". But that would not be an argument for reducing the number to just the three Mackays. I am not sure how the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, arrives at her 60. While a number of Scottish Peers appear often, as I said earlier, a fair number of my colleagues from Scotland play little part in the proceedings of the House.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I arrived at my 60 by counting the number of life Peers in the membership of the Scottish Peers Association. I think that is fairly comprehensive.
188
I have already pointed out that not all of them attend regularly. At least half, if not more, do not attend regularly.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank the noble Lady. Indeed, one can go a little further: I think she will agree that there are a few members of the Scottish Peers Association whose links with Scotland are a little tenuous and that it has been quite a long time since the predecessors of some hereditary Peers have lived in Scotland. I will not take the point that has just been made to me.
The position of Scottish Peers is a real point. My noble friends have addressed it and no doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will give us some advice on the matter—together with free tickets to the dome!
I wish now to address another and more important issue raised by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Gray. It is especially important at a time when there are to be elections to the Scottish Parliament and when there is a party in Scotland which seriously advances the cause of the breaking up of the Treaty of Union. We take this matter seriously in Scotland. Indeed, the governing party takes it so seriously that, along with its friends in the media, it has given the matter a huge amount of attention. It has rubbished the Scottish National Party quite successfully to date—sometimes with weapons which, when used by us, when we were in Government, caused us to be howled at by the very same Scottish press that is now using exactly the same ammunition. Politics is a funny old game; I should not complain. The result is that the Scottish National Party is not doing very well. But that does not mean to say that there will not come a day when it might do very well. Therefore it is important that we ensure that any legislation passed in the House is compatible with the Treaty of Union.
The Treaty of Union and the two Acts of Parliament—the Act of the English Parliament of 1706 and the Act of the Scottish Parliament of 1707—are arguably the three most important pieces of paper in the United Kingdom. They created Great Britain; they created the country in which we live. They are therefore hugely important. As my noble friend Lord Gray explained, Article XII of the Treaty of Union provides that 16 of the Peers of Scotland at the time of the Union should sit and vote in the House of Lords. That article provided that the Privy Council of Scotland should cause 16 of the Scottish Peers to be chosen in accordance with the provisions of another Act passed by the Scottish Parliament in the same year. I know it is harking back to the last debate, but it is interesting to see that Article XXII says,
"a writ shall be immediately issued under the Great Seal of Great Britain, directed to the Privy Council of Scotland, for the summoning [of] the sixteen Peers".
I will not go back over that argument; there were to be 16 Peers of Scotland. There were also to be 45 Members of the House of Commons. The Peers were to number 16 out of 179 and the Members of the Commons were to number 45 out of 513. Article XXIII of the Treaty provided that the 16 Peers selected to sit in the House

189
of Lords should have all the privileges of Parliament which Peers of England then had and which Peers of Great Britain would have after the Union. The article also provided that all the Peers of Scotland and all their successors to the honours and dignities should be Peers of Great Britain, enjoying all the rights of such Peers except the right of sitting in the House.
That remained the position until the Peerages Act 1963, Section 4, which amended the two Acts of the Scottish Parliament but not the treaty itself. In doing so, it took nothing away from the rights and privileges of the Peers of Scotland; on the contrary, it added to their rights. In no sense could it be suggested that the 1963 Act watered down the effect of the provisions of the Treaty of Union.
That is not the position with the present Bill which actually takes away from all Scottish hereditary Peers the right to be one of the 16 Scots Peers who should sit in the House of Lords. In other words, it changes the Treaty of Union; it is a serious amendment to the treaty. Of course other legislation has amended the treaty. Last year we amended the treaty, I suppose, by the passage of the Scotland Act. But the Government thought it was so important to take account of the fact that they were amending the treaty and the two important Acts that in Section 37 of the Scotland Act they inserted these two lines:
"The Union with Scotland Act 1706 and the Union with England Act 1707 have effect subject to this Act".
It may be that Ministers should discuss with their friends in the Scottish Office, and the draftsmen should discuss with the draftsmen of the Scotland Act, why they thought it was necessary to put that small section in that Act whereas the Government do not think it necessary to put something similar in this Bill.
My final point is a rather complex one. It is to address whether any limits are placed on what this Parliament can do to alter the provisions of the Act of Union. If there are any limits, are they breached by the provisions of this Bill? That is the point I want to address and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Minister will address it. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, that it is a good deal more important than he seemed to imply. The Government have to be satisfied that they have the power to amend this part of the treaty.
My justification for raising these questions is to be found in a famous case in 1953 of John MacDonald MacCormick and Ian Robertson Hamilton v. The Lord Advocate on the question of whether or not Her Majesty could be styled Queen Elizabeth the Second or whether she ought not to be styled Queen Elizabeth the First. Ian Robertson Hamilton is still alive and kicking. He is a QC at the Scottish Bar and is standing for the Scottish National Party, without much chance of success, I suspect. John MacDonald MacCormick is long dead but his sons are certainly known to some of us and indeed to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. One son, Neil MacCormick, is the Regius Professor of Public Law at the University of Edinburgh; and very prominent he is too. He is on the Scottish
190
National Party list to be elected to the Scottish Parliament. Another son, Mr. Iain MacCormick, was a Member of another place until I dispossessed him.
The point raised in the case concerned whether or not the Act of Union was being breached. In his judgment, Lord President Cooper said this:
"The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law … Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done. Further, the Treaty and the associated legislation, by which the Parliament of Great Britain was brought into being as the successor of the separate Parliaments of Scotland and England, contain some clauses which expressly reserve to the Parliament of Great Britain powers of subsequent modification, and other clauses which either contain no such power or emphatically exclude subsequent alteration by declarations that the provision shall be fundamental and unalterable in all time coming, or declarations of a like effect. I have never been able to understand how it is possible to reconcile with elementary canons of construction the adoption by the English constitutional theorists of the same attitude to these markedly different types of provisions".
The Lord President went on to say:
"The Lord Advocate"—
at that time the Lord Advocate was Lord Clyde—
"conceded this point by admitting that the Parliament of Great Britain 'could not' repeal or alter such 'fundamental and essential' conditions. He was doubtless influenced in making this concession by the modified views expressed by Dicey in his later work entitled Thoughts on the Scottish Union, from which I take this passage … After instancing the provisions as to Presbyterian Church government in Scotland with their emphatic prohibition against any alteration, the author proceeds: 'It represents the conviction of the Parliament which passed the Act of Union that the Net for the security of the Church of Scotland ought to be morally or constitutionally unchangeable, even by the British Parliament … A sovereign Parliament, in short, though it cannot he logically bound to abstain from changing any given law, may, by the fact that an Act when it was passed had been declared to be unchangeable. receive a warning that it cannot be changed without grave danger to the Constitution of the country'".
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Despite his very interesting essay on Scottish jurisprudence and the interpretation of the Act of Union, I think I am right in saying that Her Majesty the Queen is still styled Queen Elizabeth the Second in Scotland and to that extent the case must have been lost.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, but I do not think it was lost on that point. Lord President Cooper introduced that part by saying:
"Upon this view a part of the Lord Ordinary's judgment and of the argument before us disappears".
Then he said—I did not say this but the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, has prompted me—
"But lest this case should go further, I shall briefly express my opinion".
He then expressed his opinion as I read it out. But that was not the ground on which he held that the case of John MacCormick and Ian Hamilton fell. So I am afraid that the noble Lord's valiant efforts on behalf of the Government are not too successful.

191
I wonder what the Government think. I look forward to hearing what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, thinks of this and of the view of Lord President Cooper. I want to know under which category the noble and learned Lord thinks Articles XXII and XXIII fall. Are they part of the treaty, where the power to amend is there and the British Parliament can make amendments; or are they part of the treaty which the British Parliament has no power to amend?
Those questions should be answered. They are important. As I said, I do not think the Treaty of Union should be amended without a great deal of thought and without making sure that it is legitimate to amend it especially, as I said at the beginning of my contribution, when there are people in Scotland who would very happily tear up the treaty. The noble and learned Lord and his colleagues on the government side and those of us on these Benches are absolutely opposed to that. I therefore think that it is beholden on us to ensure that nothing we do disturbs the fundamental principles of the treaty.
5.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): I shall restrict myself to the amendment. Two points underlie the amendment. First, it is said that without the amendment there would inadequate representation of the Scots in this House. Secondly, it is said that the Bill transgresses both the spirit and the letter of the Treaty of Union and/or the Act of Union. I shall deal with the first point first.
In my view, it is almost unarguable, having heard the brilliance of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay or Ardbrecknish, that the Scots will not be adequately represented in the transitional House. One has simply to name a few names to indicate that they will be adequately represented. The noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, will be able to come down. He is nodding enthusiastically; he will manage that without any difficulty. I think of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie; the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg; the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane; the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston; the noble Lord, Lord Sewel; the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, to name but a few. Those names are names of honour—people who have incredibly effectively represented Scotland throughout the time that their representation has been required.
My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn has handed me a list that he would regard as being of equal lustre in relation to the people of Wales. I would love to read it out but I do not have the time. It is, as one would expect from my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, very, very long indeed.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, gave us the statistic that there are 60 members of the Association of Scottish Peers who are life Peers. I do not know whether there are life Peers from Scotland who do not join that association. If the noble Lady is the secretary it is hard
192
to imagine that they would not join. But let us assume that 60 is the minimum. That means that in the transitional House 60 out of the 500 life Peers will be Scottish. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, it is absurd to suggest that Scotland will not be adequately represented in the transitional House.
I take the amendment one stage further. The idea that the way one provides adequate representation is to take a random bunch of hereditary Peers and make them the people who represent Scotland seems absurd. What little history I know tells me that the sovereigns of this country did not appoint hereditary Peers on the basis of regional equality; where they came from was entirely random. With the greatest respect, I believe that the first basis on which this proposition is advanced does not stand any examination.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give way. I also pointed out that of those 60 life Peers a goodly number—well over half—never attended because they were otherwise occupied.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I remembered that. The 500 I have taken represents every single life Peer. I have reason to believe from what I have been told that there are some English, Welsh and Northern Irish life Peers who do not attend either. Therefore, one is comparing like with like.
I turn to the second basis of the argument; namely, the immutable nature of the Act of Union. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, treated us to a disquisition on Scottish law. He pointed out that the quote from Lord Cooper indicated that the Treaty of Union was made between the sovereign Parliaments of Scotland and England. He said that therefore Lord Cooper was suggesting that bits of it could never be changed. He spoke about the part dealing with the representation of Scottish hereditary Peers. That would mean that one could not increase or decrease the number. If one increased the number it would, as I understood the argument of the noble Lord, offend against the deal done on behalf of the English Parliament. That is the necessary effect of the argument advanced by Lord Cooper.
The case to which reference was made predated 1963. By 1963 it was constitutional convention accepted by all that the UK Parliament was sovereign and that there were no entrenched provisions. That was reflected in the 1963 amendment to the Act of Union which changed the basis on which Scottish hereditary Peers sat in this House. It was changed effectively from an elected system, to which the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, referred, to one in which every Scottish hereditary Peer had the right to sit. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, it has been accepted by constitutional lawyers that that point has gone. It is on that basis that the Bill has been drafted.
I make one final point on the spirit and letter of the Act of Union. Noble Lords have rightly been referred by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, to the provisions of the Treaty of Union which provide that Scottish hereditary Peers shall be treated just the same as English, Northern Irish and Welsh hereditary Peers.

193
As everybody knows, English, Northern Irish and Welsh hereditary Peers will lose their right to sit and take part in these proceedings; in accordance with the Treaty of Union, so should Scottish hereditary Peers.
The Earl of Caithness: Can the noble and learned Lord provide any other examples of breaches of the articles of the Treaty of Union, and when?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is not a question of the provisions being breached. The particular example that I have given is precisely that which has been relied on in this matter; namely, the provision relating to the election of hereditary Peers. It is not a question of providing examples but demonstrating that this one is changeable.
The Earl of Caithness: With respect, the noble and learned Lord has not answered my question. I heard exactly what he said. He referred to the particular point raised by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. Does the noble and learned Lord know of any other cases where there has been a breach of the Treaty of Union, and when?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not believe that the noble Earl understands my point. I do not accept that there is any breach. What is the relevance of other examples when we can see that the very provision relied on has already been amended and was repealed by the Statute Law Reform Act 1993?
Lord Elton: If the noble and learned Lord rests his case on parity of treatment between the hereditary Peers, how does that fit with the Weatherill amendment?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Scottish hereditary Peers, like all other Peers, will be entitled to stand for election.
The Earl of Northesk: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can clarify one matter. Notwithstanding anything else, does the appearance of the word "derogation" on the face of the Act of Union have any substance left to it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I believe that I have set out the constitutional position, which is that this Parliament is sovereign in relation to all previous Acts of Parliament.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble and learned Lord certainly made a nice point, as his colleagues would describe it, about the 16. But does he agree with me that there is a difference between increasing the number, which was what happened—it was not a significant increase because by that time there were not many left—and decreasing it? I would have thought that his argument would have held a lot more water had the 1963 Act led to less than 16. The fact that it kept the 16 and added to them indicates that that did not breach the Act. If I accept for the moment the argument of the noble and learned Lord, why have
194
the Government not put something like Section 37 of the Scotland Act into this Bill to put the issue beyond. peradventure?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, Lord Cooper in the particular case was concerned with the sovereign. Parliaments of Scotland and England. The sovereign. Parliament of England would have an interest in keeping the Scottish representation down, just as the sovereign Parliament of Scotland would have an interest in keeping it up. On the basis of the argument advanced, because it is an agreement it makes no difference whether one increases or reduces the number of Scottish Peers. As to the second point, the matter is clear beyond peradventure and there is no need to put it in the Bill.
Lord Norton of Louth: Perhaps I may pick up the approach of the noble and learned Lord to the issue itself. When the question of Scottish Peers in this House was raised, the noble and learned Lord had to rely on looking round the Chamber, a note from his noble friend and figures provided by another noble Lord. Surely, knowing that this amendment was to he dealt with, I would have thought that the noble and learned Lord would have come armed with the relevant figures to respond. That may appear a small point in relation to this amendment, but it has wider significance because it has happened before. There is a general reliance on numbers and who will be there when the Bill is passed. I am concerned that the consequences are thought through rather than that there should be simple reliance on the manifesto as being sufficient. One must think through the position in the interim—not just the numbers but who they are—and the effect on business. Rather than make assumptions, I believe that there is a case for giving further thought in advance to what is involved and coming to the debate better armed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I deal with the noble Lord's ticking-off. I believe that, rather than put forward my own argument, to take the Opposition's case in order to demonstrate the truth of my proposition is a more effective way of dealing with it. If one can demonstrate that the arguments advanced by the other side support one's own position that is often more effective.
Lord Gray: I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part, particularly those who have supported me. With a little push from my noble friend Lord Waddington, perhaps the debate strayed rather wider than I anticipated. I am glad that we did not have to go so far as fully to involve the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
To try to sum up a debate of this kind is beyond me. However, I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that when he gave his reasons for opposing the amendment he placed some emphasis on representation. My emphasis was on the position of the Act of Union. I do not deny that there are very many worthy Scottish life Peers in this House. I know them well and admire the work that they do, but that is not the point.

195
6 p.m.
I was very grateful to have some endorsement for my views on the Act of Union from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey. I was also grateful for the points made by my noble friend Lord Northesk.
There is a point about the Scots Peers which has not been mentioned in this debate. Many Scots hereditary Peers sit on the Cross Benches, whereas I suspect that the majority of Scots life Peers have come here if not through legal eminence, then by the political route. There are some who are even more independent Cross-Benchers, like myself.
This is a debate which I shall need to read with some care. There are obviously serious points concerning the impact upon the Act of Union, which is why I tabled the amendment in the first place, and its complexity is more than I can possibly digest this evening.
With your Lordships' permission, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gray Lord Gray moved Amendment No.12:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to section (Peers of Scotland (No.2))")
The noble Lord said: I may be accused of being rather a nuisance because I rise again—for the same reasons. Amendment No.12 is a paving amendment for Amendment No.51 which contains the substantive provision; Amendment No.67 is consequential.
After the long debate we have had, it would be very unfair to weary the Committee by going over the ground which I covered when I introduced the last set of amendments and I certainly shall not do so. For the benefit of any noble Lords who did not hear my remarks then, I say only that the basis for my putting forward these amendments is preservation of the original Treaty of Union provision that Scotland should be represented in this House by 16 Peers of Scotland elected from their fellows each parliament. I have already reminded noble Lords that the provision was widened in 1963 when the 16 were replaced with all Peers of Scotland.
Whereas my Amendment No.50 was simpler in format, the scheme of which Amendment No.51 is the core would return us to the Article XXII position, with 16 Peers elected to sit and vote here. The use of an electoral system lines up with the scheme behind the amendment which we know as the Weatherill amendment. As we do not know how long the interim House will last, it would be reasonable to establish electoral machinery. For the avoidance of doubt, the word "only" is included in my draft to restrict the right to stand for election to those Peers who are Peers of Scotland only.
I feel very strongly that something should be done to avoid the consequences of the Government's proposal to repeal Section 4 of the 1963 Act, which had its roots in the Act of Union.
We are constantly reminded of the manifesto commitment which justifies this Bill. Perhaps I might be allowed to point out that the paragraphs dealing with
196
devolution in that manifesto are headed, "Devolution—Strengthening the Union". I hope that the Government will recognise that these amendments would contribute to that strengthening. The Government's position appears to be contradictory. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend's amendment would simply take us back to the 1963 position—that is, there would still be 16 elected Peers.
I doubt that there is very much to add to the previous arguments. I would take the opportunity to say, however, that I thought the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, probably did not read out his noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn's list of the Welsh Peers for exactly the same reason as, when I took part in the Welsh devolution Bill, I said that I would do everything, bar anything that asked me to get my tongue round some of the names. I suspect that is really the problem for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde and I noticed that, in the distinguished list of Scotsmen which the noble and learned Lord read out, we were both missed out. As my noble friend is so young, I keep thinking that he is a life Peer—or perhaps I am assuming that the Weatherill amendment is already passed!
I listened with some interest to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I shall be consulting various legal luminaries who delve into these matters to see whether he is correct that events have overtaken Lord President Cooper's judgment. It is possible that we may come back to that, but I shall leave it in other hands, and even to other voices, if there are points still to be argued.
With that, I simply say that, as with the previous amendment, my noble friend Lord Gray has done us a service in drawing to our attention the important way in which the Act of Union interfaces with this Bill as far as the peerage is concerned.
Lord Elton: As my noble friend has helpfully introduced the matter of electoral procedures, may I use this opportunity to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he can give us some assurance that when we reach the main debate on electoral procedures, which I presume will hinge on the Weatherill amendment, we shall by then have had an opportunity to see, discuss and digest the Standing Orders of the House under which it is proposed that those procedures shall operate, otherwise we shall be discussing this in somewhat of a vacuum?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Without any disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, I think that the principles which underlie this amendment are the same as those which underlay the previous amendment. The only difference is that it is an electoral college rather than all Scottish hereditary Peers being entitled to sit.
I shall not repeat the remarks I have made, but I do make this point in relation to the amendment: the effect of the amendment is to allow holders of Scottish and other UK peerages to vote in this electoral college as long as they have a Scottish peerage among their

197
peerages; yet it allows Scottish Peers only to be elected, which in effect was the position before 1963 and which, with the greatest respect, is completely odd, because it means that people who have absolutely no right to sit here can vote in that strange election.
That is the only differential point. Again, I ask noble Lords to reject the amendment if it is pressed to a vote.
The reason I did not mention the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in the list was because my first remark was that once one had heard a speech of the brilliance of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, there was no need to worry about Scottish representation. I did not mention the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, because—this may be news to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—I understand him to be a hereditary Peer, although his talents would suggest that he had got here on his own merits.
Lord Elton: Is there any source from which we can be told about the availability of the Standing Orders? I know that it is wide of the amendment, but I can think of no other occasion on which we can ask for the assurance. When we come to that debate, we should then be briefed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am not in a position to give an answer one way or the other.
Lord Gray: I am grateful for the contributions we have had on the amendment. I shall not detain the Committee long. Before I withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may offer the following information. At present, so far as I can work out, some 41 Peers could vote but not stand in the election that I propose, and about 40 could stand for election. My mathematics are not necessarily very good, but I have done some research. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No.13:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 4(I) and (1A)")
The noble Lord said: This is a paving amendment. I shall speak to Amendment No.112. The effect of the amendment is to put off the date at which the Bill comes into effect until each House of Parliament has passed a resolution that it will do so; and that it will not do so until the report of the Royal Commission has been considered by this House.
I believe that the amendment is attractive to the Government for many reasons. I think that it is somewhat difficult for the Government to oppose. It makes no attempt to change the underlying theme of the Government's alteration of this House. It does not attempt to argue against their manifesto commitment. It merely proposes delaying the Bill coming into effect until the Royal Commission has reported. I believe that all Members of this House, the public and the press think that that is right: that there should be no stage one
198
without stage two. The amendment proposes that the Act takes effect only after the Royal Commission has reported and each House of Parliament has voted on the matter.
The only concession required by the Government is that the amendment allows hereditary Peers to stay in office slightly longer than they would otherwise have done. As there have been Peers in office for many hundreds of years, I do not think that that is a severe penalty to bear. The prize is that the Government will receive the wise advice and views of the Royal Commission in making this major constitutional change. If the Government do not accept the amendment, or an amendment along this line, the penalties are that they will create a vacuum for this House which will be stripped of all hereditary Peers and with a flood of new life Peers to balance the Labour ranks with those Peers who are left.
Is it right that this House should agree to pull down so rapidly a structure which is dependent upon centuries of history, and one which has worked reasonably well, with no plans for its reconstruction? We accept that the Government have a mandate to make these changes. We accept that changes are desirable in many respects. But they wish to do so at a speed which destroys the present structure with no idea of what they will put in its place. It is left to a Royal Commission. It is hoped that the Royal Commission will report at the end of this year. We are talking about a break of a few months in order that a wise body can bring forward suggestions for this House and another place to consider before finally sacking hereditary Peers.
One of the hallmarks created, rightly or wrongly, by the Government since they have been in office is the starting of schemes without seeing them through to the end. One can think of a variety of matters which they have started. The Government have then scratched their heads and have been unsure what to do. I ask that they agree to wait until the Royal Commission has reported before the Act comes into effect.
Baroness Blatch: My amendment, Amendment No.113, is grouped with my noble friend's amendment. It will not have gone unnoticed that they are similar. However, my amendment has a slightly tougher ending. Having spoken with my noble friend, I think that there may be a preference for Amendment No.113.
At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor threatened the whole House that if the Government were displeased by amendments that we may pass, or any delay that may be incurred, or some other as yet unnamed displeasure that we may cause, we may or may not have—depending on the whim of the Government or the Lord Chancellor of the day—a Bill with the Weatherill amendment. So I wish to make clear at the outset that my amendment is predicated with or without the Weatherill amendment.
I pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. Earlier he slightly chided the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for not coming armed with some basic statistics for previous amendments on the number of people who would be available to the interim House.

199
I find it extraordinary that the Government not only do not know what stage two will be, but are not in a position to make an intelligent guess as to the size of the interim Chamber.
There is nothing in the Bill or the White Paper or from any of the discussions we have had which suggests to the House or the outside world that Members of the interim or stage two Chamber will be remunerated for their efforts here. So I do not know what pressures the Government believe that they can bring to bear on those Members who habitually do not attend this place, sometimes for very good reason. There may be reasons of health. It may be because work outside the House precludes them from attending here, or the logistics of getting to and from this House on a daily basis make attendance difficult. We have a number of Members of this House who attend infrequently, but when they attend they bring to bear a specialism, a specialty, a point of interest which is extremely valuable to the work of this House.
I do not write off the importance of the number of attendances. But as an interim Chamber, with or without the Weatherill amendment, we have an obligation to do our work properly. We have a scrutiny obligation. We have an obligation to man (as I prefer to call it, in the universal sense) the committees of this House. The work of those committees is extremely important to the work of Parliament. At the very least, the Government should be able to say with some confidence that the size of the interim Chamber, and the likely daily attendance of Members during the interregnum, will meet all those obligations regarding the quality expected of a second Chamber without too onerous a duty on individual Members.
Some of us are sceptical about stage two. Will it come at all? How long will it take? How difficult will it be to reconcile the different viewpoints about its shape, nature, role and functions? It is likely that the interregnum could continue for some time. However, if one takes the Government at their word, they are saying that they do not expect a delay between stages one and two. I suggest that they cannot have it both ways. If the second stage will follow quickly after the first, what is the point of an interregnum? If the second stage is not to follow without undue delay, it is important that we have a strengthened interregnum, against which the Government have set their face, or that we do not commence stage one until both Houses have seen the report of the Royal Commission and discussed it. It is then that with some confidence we shall have a better understanding of how long the interregnum will be and can move on to that stage and the definitive second stage.
I do not argue the finer detail and that the Bill should have gone through both Houses in order to implement stage two. However, I believe that at least we should see the report of the Royal Commission. There should be a discussion in both Houses, and a resolution should be determined by both Houses that it is timely to commence stage two. For that reason, I believe that the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Boardman and my amendment should be given serious
200
consideration, even at the risk of offending the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues in government.
I really am delighted that we are not cowered by those threats. This is important business; it is a serious constitutional change. However threatened we all may be—and we now know that we are all threatened, not just our hereditary colleagues—we have a duty to scrutinise this legislation. We have a duty to make it better, if that is possible and I believe that it is, and we have a duty to strengthen the interregnum arrangements or to delay their implementation until both Houses are satisfied that stage two lives up to the criteria laid down by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. It should be consistent with an independent, strong second Chamber that is able to keep the executive in check and balance.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she help me on the following point? Not for the first time, reference has been made to the deprivation the Chamber will suffer with the absence of hereditary Peers. Many of my colleagues are unable to serve on committees because of the political complexion of the House. By agreement, the number of members of a committee is based on the proportion which the parties enjoy in the House. Can the noble Baroness tell us from where she gets the idea that in a House deprived of hereditary Peers there will be a shortage of Members who are willing to serve and to carry out its work?
Baroness Blatch: I can answer that directly. In an interregnum House without the Weatherill amendment, 750 Members will immediately leave. After examining the daily attendance over the past four or five years, and seeing who attends from the beginning to the end of business enabling the House to fulfil all its duties, including committee work. I believe that there will be difficulty in expecting the 300 or 400 who are left to do so. Even with the Weatherill amendment, the number will not be much higher. I believe that the number of Members who will be expected to attend daily in order to meet the obligations of the business of the House will present a difficulty. It is incumbent on Ministers to give us their intelligent guesses as to the likely attendance in the House with or without the Weatherill amendment.
Baroness Crawley: I listened carefully to the commencement argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and to the attendance argument put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, which have been ably answered by my noble friend Lord Graham. However, I am irresistibly drawn to the conclusion that these amendments are quite deliberately delaying tactics. They are an attempt to put the Bill as it stands on the back burner, on the long arm, as far away from becoming legislation in this parliamentary Session as it is possible to get away with.
What is so admiringly blatant about the amendments, which are designed to delay the removal of the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House, is that they are proposed in the teeth of a manifesto pledge

201
which could not be clearer if it were written in letters 20 feet high and hung across the roof of the Palace of Westminster. The manifesto states—
Lord Strathclyde: Does the noble Baroness consider that just because the proposals are in the manifesto they cannot be debated?
Baroness Crawley: Of course not. I was referring to the admiringly blatant quality of the amendments which form part of the debate.
I know that noble Lords opposite will be extremely keen to hear again the quotation from the manifesto. It states:
"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".
That could not be mistaken for anything other than an intent at exceptional clarity in a manifesto which, as my noble friend the Leader of the House reminded us last week, was so popular it was on The Times' best-seller list for 1997. Another publication on the same list was The Little Book of Calm, which should be recommended reading for all those taking part in this Committee stage.
The delay in the Bill, which the amendments would create. most definitely goes against the spirit of the Salisbury convention. I imagine that it would be considered by the Government as an extremely wrecking route for noble Lords to take. The Government are totally committed to further reform. As we know, the Royal Commission is the first stage of that further reform. But the Bill stands alone in its intent for the very good reason, as noble Lords opposite are well aware, that linking the two stages of reform have historically led to stalemate and failure. Despite the best efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, many of us will resist the delaying blandishments of these amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: Will the noble Baroness tell us precisely what wording in the manifesto Amendment No.112 does violence to? The amendment does not affect the stand-alone element, because the Act would have been passed. It does not affect removing the hereditary Peers' right to sit and vote; that would have gone by the Act; and it does not make it dependent on further reform, because it is merely awaiting proposals. So the amendment is neutral about what follows, and does not do violence to the words of the manifesto commitment.
Baroness Crawley: I believe very firmly that the spirit of the three amendments does do violence to the spirit of the Salisbury Convention, by inevitably delaying the Bill which, as a stand-alone Bill—a very clear, very short, 25-line, stand-alone Bill—should be able to go through in one Session.
Lord Norton of Louth: I was not aware that the Salisbury Convention was in the manifesto. With which part of the manifesto does the amendment conflict? As it stands, I cannot see that it does. I was going to
202
intervene later to be helpful to the Minister who is to reply by pointing out that it does not do violence to it and therefore may actually be attractive to the Government.
Baroness Crawley: I am holding the section from the manifesto to which I referred. It states that the Bill is a stand-alone Bill which does not depend on any further reform, as the noble Lord has just stated. Therefore, amendments that call for delaying the Bill until further reform is decided, by whatever mechanisms are available in the future, are very much delaying tactics.
The Earl of Onslow: I am infinitely impressed by noble Baronesses who say "I have listened with great care" to the arguments advanced by my noble friends Lord Boardman and Lady Blatch and then produce a wodge of paper, several pages thick, so obviously written in about 0.5 of a nanosecond, as opposed to being prepared from the outset. So, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I strongly suspect that her speech had been written before she listened to the argument. We have all done it—there is nothing to be ashamed of—but do not try to con us.
Baroness Crawley: The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has many qualities, but I did not realise that he was, as it were, an angel or a ghost on my shoulder, watching me in the many hours between my looking at the amendments and speaking to them, and knowing whether certain parts of my speech were prepared before or after. I am amazed at his qualities.
The Earl of Onslow: I shall certainly rest on the noble Baroness's broad shoulders whenever she thinks it is necessary.
There is another point to make about the amendment, an amendment with which I am not in agreement. I would have been completely in agreement with it, had it not been for the Weatherill amendment. The noble Baroness says that we must not pass wrecking amendments, and that the matter was in the manifesto. The manifesto says quite categorically that the Government will get rid of the hereditary peerage. Lo and behold, they have agreed to an amendment, with which I too am in complete agreement, which drives more than a coach and horses through the original Bill. As wrecking amendments go, it is the whole Royal Mews—state landaus, the Irish state coach, the lot.
Therefore, we have a Bill that is genuinely capable of a little bit of improvement. I have been on record as wanting proper reform. Those of us who want reform look for a little more of the spirit that the Government have shown over the Weatherill amendment. I do not mind the fact that it needed the ability of a Byzantine theologist to make the Weatherill amendment work in line with the Labour Party manifesto. I do not hold manifestos up as holy writ. But we should give the Government credit for what they have done. Yes. let us try to make sure that their appointment system is more satisfactory afterwards; but if we accept this amendment, we shall be asking a bit much of them. Had it not been for the Weatherill amendment, I would have

203
gone down this line time and time again, and I would have been as nasty as I possibly could be. But when somebody has made a concession, we should approach it in the spirit in which it is made.
The point about the whole Royal Commission and the Bill is surely this: if the Royal Commission reports quickly and its recommendations are passed quickly, that is all right but, if not, we must make sure that the Bill itself is a stand-alone measure.
I totally agree with my noble friend Lady Blatch that to pass an Act of Parliament which results in one House of Lords having lasted 700 years and another lasting 15 months is a fairly silly way of doing things. But we have agreed that. We must also ensure that, if the interim House lasts for more than 15 months or further change is postponed (because of what Harold Macmillan described as "Events, dear boy"), the Bill is as good as it can be. With the greatest respect to my noble friends Lord Boardman and Lady Blatch, I do not think that it matters whether or not that is done after the report of the Royal Commission. Therefore, I would not support them in this. The noble Baroness who has just spoken has completely missed the point of what has been discussed and what her own side has agreed to do. Let us give the Government credit. I am afraid that I cannot support my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lord Boardman.
Lord Monson: I cannot agree with the noble Earl. When the Bill was first conceived a couple of years ago nobody, whether in or out of government, knew that a Royal Commission was to be set up, still less that it would be required to produce its recommendations by 31st December this year, a mere eight months hence. On the contrary, it was assumed that any recommendations for major reform would take years rather than months to produce. On that assumption, it was not unreasonable to frame the Bill so that the hereditary Peers could be got rid of before the end of October this year—that is, if one accepts the Government's general arguments against the hereditary Peers, which I do not. However, the fact that the Royal Commission has been charged with making its recommendations in eight months' time changes things utterly. It enables, in theory at any rate, a much smoother, less abrupt and more logical transition to take place. However, the Bill as it stands unfortunately fetters the Royal Commission and may pre-empt its recommendations.
After all, the commission could very well conclude that the good governance of this country, the optimum handling of legislation and the restraint of the currently excessive powers of the executive all require the continued presence in Parliament, either permanently or for a limited period, of some or all of the hereditary Peers currently sitting in the House of Lords. But unless these amendments are agreed to, however strongly the commission might consider this to be the best option, it would not be entitled to make such a recommendation. This is a crazy state of affairs. Accordingly, I strongly support the amendments.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: We were all privileged to hear a heroic speech from the noble Baroness, Lady
204
Blatch. "We will not be cowed", she said. Cowed by whom? Cowed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor? What did the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say? He said that there was a bargain—a bargain to which the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the Government were parties. It does not seem to me that the noble and learned Lord said anything other than that there was a bargain and that the Conservative Party would have to pay a price for that bargain, a point to which I shall come in a few moments.
Certainly, the Committee has demonstrated a remarkable, if not altogether surprising, appetite for discussing these issues. In the October and February debates we had over 200 speeches, and last Tuesday, the first day of the Committee stage, we had a large number of additional Second Reading speeches. Some of those who participated claimed that they were speaking to probing amendments, as they were described, but there was and is nothing to probe. The only issue before us in reality is whether the Committee is prepared to accept the proposition that hereditary Peers should no longer be permitted to speak and vote in the House of Lords. That is the issue. It is the only issue before us. The Committee should recognise that.
The Earl of Onslow: Has not the noble Lord just made another Second Reading speech—the complaint he has made about others?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am responding to a speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who gave us a full account of her views on the subject. I make no complaint about that. I propose to return to one or two points of general application made in the debate because we should recognise the issue that we are discussing when dealing with this amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, referred to the Labour Party manifesto. Indeed, she was quite right to do so. It has been mentioned once or twice before. Nevertheless, given the character of some of the speeches to which we have listened since the beginning of this Committee stage, it is right to remind the Conservative Party of what was in that manifesto. The same applies also to my own party. That is why those of us sitting on these Benches are firmly in support of the Bill.
It is right to remind the Committee yet again that both manifestos made it clear that this would be a two-stage reform, a point which is of fundamental significance in relation to this amendment.
Although there have been many fierce attacks on the Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, clarified the position when he spoke on the first amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The noble Viscount said:
"Tempted as 1 am by the prospect of supporting my noble friend's amendment. it is in direct contravention of what has come to he known as the Salisbury Convention".
A few moments later, he added:
"I would strongly advise your Lordships against supporting on the first day of Committee stage debate an amendment the effect of which would be to wreck the Bill-. —[Official Report 20/4/99: col.1042.]

205
That was clear, was it not? The problem is that the majority of the amendments now on the Marshalled List have, as their central purpose, the desire to undermine the main proposition within this very short Bill.
The question of the Weatherill amendment has been raised. My noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank and I have indicated our concern about it. But the amendments before us now are far more substantial than the Committee recognises and certainly far more substantial than the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, suggested. First, they seek to ensure that when the Bill receives Royal Assent it should not come into effect until the Royal Commission has reported and both Houses would then be obliged—in some respects this is the most important part of the amendment—to pass resolutions before the Bill came into effect. I wonder what is the meaning of that.
The political consequences are clear. The Conservative majority in this Chamber could then vote against that resolution and the Bill would be dead. That is the reality. That is what we are discussing. There should be no misunderstanding. This is one of the most fundamental amendments tabled for Committee stage. For the reasons that I have indicated, what is being suggested is entirely unacceptable to us.
The problem is that a number of Members of the House—the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, referred to it—are determined that they will organise a prolonged series of debates challenging the decision made by the British electorate two years ago.
Earlier this Session, we were promised by noble Lords on the Conservative Benches—and this was before the negotiations of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, with the Government—some kind of political—
6.45 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The noble Lord referred to a deal, a bargain, brokered between the Opposition and the Government as regards the Weatherill amendment. I do not know what that was. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As we were not parties to it, I cannot answer the noble Lord's question. But as the deal has been reported rather widely in the newspapers, there is not much mystery about it.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has prayed in aid the deal without knowing the details of it. Will he tell the Committee whether the deal precluded the tabling of any other amendment to the Bill?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: That is a matter on which the leadership of the Conservative Party will be in a position to judge better than I because, as I understand it, at the time the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was fired as Leader of the Opposition by Mr.. Hague, he indicated that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, had been party to some of those
206
discussions. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be able to answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, without any difficulty.
Before the sad passing of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, as Leader of the Opposition, we were promised some form of political Gettysburg. We were told that there would be the fiercest battle that the House of Lords had ever seen. Last week, we certainly heard the thunder of the guns; but, of course, there were no casualties because the guns were firing blanks. There was no Pickett charge for the army had disappeared. As soon as the moment of decision arose, nob1e Lords concerned withdrew their amendments.
The reason is clear. As a result of the talks, on which, no doubt, in a few moments the noble Lord. Lord Strathclyde, will be able to assist the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the Conservative Party is aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde is aware, that it is on probation. If it attempts to wreck the Bill, its members know that the Government may drop their support for the Weatherill amendment which guarantees places for a minimum of 42 hereditary Conservative Peers in this House.
Therefore, until now we have merely witnessed a phoney war. Certainly, there has been a desire to wound the Government but there have also been grave doubts on the Conservative Benches about striking too fierce a blow against the Government, which could lead to painful reprisals.
The question for the Opposition is clear. If they support the amendment in the name of noble Lord, Lord Boardman, which is the paving amendment for the two others to which he referred, designed to delay the implementation of the Government's manifesto commitment, they are clearly in breach of the Salisbury convention. As we all recognise, they have an overwhelming majority in this House and if they go into the Lobby, they will win. None of us has any doubts about that.
As I indicated, for us, as I am sure for many others, this is a major issue of principle. The Committee deserves to be allowed to make a clear decision one way or the other. If yet another request is made for leave to be given to withdraw the amendment, we shall insist on a Division. The time has come to end the period of this phoney war. If the members of the Conservative Party then choose to use their majority to carry the amendment, so be it. The responsibility will be theirs.
Lord Strathclyde: I am intrigued by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who makes much of the constitutional convention. There are two important conventions in this House. One is the Salisbury convention. Another is the convention that we do not vote against secondary legislation. I have yet to see the Liberal Democrats stick to that second convention. They are picking and choosing on the conventions that they decide to support and it is not good enough.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, that it is a quite

207
extraordinary point of view that just because a Bill is heralded in a manifesto, no amendments should be tabled to it in Parliament. That is the most extraordinary view to have expressed in this House.
Baroness Crawley: That is not what I said.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: I am sorry, but my hearing is pretty good and that is precisely what was said. The noble Baroness said that because it was in the manifesto, that was a clear expression that the Bill was going to come through. I believe she said that it would be a one-stage Bill or a one-storey Bill; that it was obnoxious, appalling and against all sorts of conventions that anyone should put down amendments to it. I am bound to say to the noble Baroness that there are many people in this House who share with me a long period of time in another place. If it had ever been the rule that we were never to put down amendments or argue a Bill that was in a party manifesto, I think it would have been a surprising development for all of us and we would not have accepted it.
Lord Richard: I was sitting next to my noble friend Lady Crawley, when she was on her feet. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, interrupted her and asked her specifically if she was saying that there should be no discussion of amendments to the Bill. The answer my noble friend gave was clearly "No", that that was not her view.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: We were not talking about discussions, we were talking about amendments. The noble Baroness quite clearly was angry that there were amendments tabled on this particular point.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The noble Baroness refers to her long experience in another place which, of course, we all respect. She will be aware that in another place amendments of this kind—indeed, there were suggestions of amendments of this nature referring to what we would call the second stage of reform—were ruled inadmissible by the Table in another place.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: Everyone who has had experience in another place, which includes many in this House, is aware that amendments can be ruled unacceptable and not debated. There is no argument about that. That was not the case that I was making. I was trying to tell the noble Baroness—possibly trying to extend her education of the general system of government in this country—that there is nothing wrong with an opposition opposing it. It is as simple as that.
I very much want to support, even if briefly, my noble friends Lord Boardman and Lady Blatch in the two amendments. To proceed before a Royal Commission has reported seems to me to be not only putting the cart before the horse but putting the cart in a position when the horse is not even in the stable. What in the world is
208
the sense of having a Royal Commission to report on something when half of what it is to consider has already been dealt with? What, indeed, if the Royal Commission decided, as some of us feel to be the case, that the hereditary Peers have served this House, and continue to do so, extremely well; that they do about half of all the solid, slogging work of the House and are, indeed, valuable? The Royal Commission might well reach the conclusion that it would be wrong to get rid of such hard working people who work for nothing.
It may also point out that in the main it is the hereditary Peers who provide the youth in this House, which is a very good thing. There are many other cases which the Royal Commission might discuss and conclude by saying, "Wait a minute. You should not really have got rid of the hereditaries. You haven't thought this thing through. "
I am a little tired of hearing about the Labour Party manifesto. I remind the Committee that it has been reported that only 2 per cent of the people who admitted reading it knew anything about this suggestion. Of that 2 per cent perhaps only I per cent knew that there would be a one-stage Bill or even understood what that phrase might mean. After all, as I understand it, there were several other assurances in the Labour Party manifesto. It was not just a "one issue document" to which the people of this country overwhelmingly agreed. I am a little tired of being told that it was.
To go ahead without listening to the carefully thought through opinion of experts about this House and how it can be most effective seems to me to be absolutely absurd. Is not the Royal Commission going to look at how the House of Lords has worked all these years? If a Royal Commission is to be set up, I do not understand the sense in going ahead without listening to everything it might have to say on the efficacy of this House and the way business should be conducted here in the future.
Lord Bach: I have listened carefully to the remarks of the noble Baroness. May I take it from what she has had to say that she does not agree with the conclusions reached by the Mackay Commission set up by the leader of her party?
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: I am merely speaking to the two amendments as they are set down on the Order Paper. I believe that I am perfectly in order in doing that.
Lord Bach: Perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me for coming back, and will answer my question. I think it is a fairly simple one.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: The question asked had absolutely nothing to do with what I said or the two amendments. I am therefore perfectly in order in refusing to answer it.
Lord Desai: I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, as they both know. In pushing the amendment they have argued that if it was passed it would somehow improve the Bill. However, they also

209
say that all the amendment does is not to amend the Bill but delay its implementation. Amendment No.113 states:
"shall not come into force".
Therefore, it will not alter what the Bill says. It says, "Here is a Bill. Let us suspend implementation until January", in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, or—who knows when a joint committee of the two Houses of Parliament will be—let us say December 2000; that seems to be the consensus. Therefore, if we were to take their speeches at face value, they say, "Oh. no. We don't want to improve the Bill itself; the Bill is fine. We just want to delay its implementation".
Let us accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, that the requirement that there be a resolution by both Houses of Parliament is intended to be a Trojan horse for the amendment of the Bill in a way which is not intended in the Bill as it is before the House. The purpose of the Bill is stated at the top; namely, to remove the hereditary Peers. That is its only purpose. If the resolution of the two Houses of Parliament is not to alter the substance of the Bill, what is the point of the delay? It does not improve the Bill; it just delays it. If it is going to change its substance, then in rejecting the purpose of the Bill noble Lords are going against the manifesto of the Labour Party. My noble friend Lady Crawley said that she objected to a delaying or wrecking amendment. Discussing an amendment is fine.
Lord Boardman: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I said, or intended to make clear, that we are talking about the constitution of this House, which we hope will last for centuries afterwards. It is not unreasonable to have a delay of eight or nine months—which is the time for the Royal Commission to report—in order to set up what we believe to be the best constitution for this House. The delay is in order to have the considered report before the die is cast.
7 p m.
Lord Desai: With respect to the noble Lord, that is not what the amendment says. It does not say that when the commission has reported we will have another Bill incorporated into this Bill and we will consider that. His amendment says that the Act shall be as it is when it is enacted.
So the noble Lord is not talking about a second stage in these amendments, and nor is the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. They say: "It has been agreed that this Bill should go through as it is, but somehow, for various reasons—the atmosphere is not right; we are waiting for Hurricane Mitch or whatever else it is; we have waited 700 years—we are going to delay its implementation". But either the delay is going substantially to change the Bill and this is therefore a wrecking amendment, or it is otiose. We have reason to believe, therefore, that these amendments should be rejected.
Lord Crickhowell: The central issue for many of us in relation to this Bill is that we object to passing a constitutional Bill which leaves us in a black hole.
210
I suppose it was characteristic of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that he should speak so firmly in support of a vacuum. But I am bound to say that he is a little foolish if he urges us to fire the heavy guns. I can assure him that I feel no inhibitions, either because some deal has been done in which I was not involved or indeed because of any interpretation of the Salisbury convention, about firing guns. But I shall fire them at the moment of my choice and not at the moment of choice of the noble Lord.
I always feel that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is desperately regretting that moment when he left the Labour Party and is seeking his way back as rapidly as he possibly can. But then his whole life, to use that immortal phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, earlier, has been the development from a correct premise to a wholly fantastic conclusion.
I turn to the more realistic and sensible, but not very convincing, argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. She hung her hat solely on the manifesto pledge. One of the difficulties I have about the manifesto pledge arises from a criticism made by the Labour Party about the Conservative Party when it asked, "Why did you not get on with reform when you were in government?". The Labour Party had 17 years or so to work out its proposals for constitutional reform and all it was able to come up with was this simple, short manifesto commitment and this simple, short Bill. All the great brains, the think-tanks, the advisers that were working away for the whole of the 17 years, could not produce more. All the information I can get out of government, government departments, advisers in government—one still has a few ways to sift what is happening within government and government departments—is that the Government still do not have the faintest idea what is to follow this Bill and are relying solely on the Royal Commission to give them some ideas.
There is therefore a pretty strong case, when we are dealing with a constitutional Bill of this importance, to say, "We will not recklessly get rid of 'what we have at the moment until we can be pretty certain that we know what is going to follow on; at least until we have seen what the Royal Commission has had to say and Parliament has had an opportunity in both Houses to debate it". We know now that the issues are pretty complex, even if we did not know it before We now have the report of the Mackay commission, which was referred to by a Member of the Committee who has now left the Chamber. That did not reach any final conclusions; indeed, on perhaps the most difficult issue of all, as to whether or not to have an elected Chamber, it gave two options and left the matter for further debate and consideration. That is a subject about which some of us have strong views which no doubt we will present in due course.
If we had had doubts about the complexity of the issues, we could not have after reading the consultation paper issued by the Royal Commission with the innumerable questions it asks. And again, if we had had doubts about the matter, we could not have any after reading the views of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, In

211
the short time since he left government he seems to be able to go far further in reaching firm conclusions about the future than his colleagues did over 17 years.
I do not have any hesitation in pursuing these issues. I shall not have any hesitation in firing the heavy guns in due course, at a moment of my choice and that of my colleagues. Of course, if the Liberal Party wants to start tabling amendments and joining in the fun, it is welcome. But I expect that it will withdraw from the battle as it has withdrawn from serious battles whenever they really begin.
In relation to the views of my noble friend Lord Onslow, I do not see anything in these amendments which makes me worry about the introduction of the Weatherill amendment, whether or not I favour it. I do not express a view about that now, though I may do later. It does not inhibit or prejudice the acceptance by this Committee of the Weatherill amendment and therefore, because I am not prepared to accept at any stage of this Bill that we should allow the Government on the strength of their manifesto commitment to leave the constitutional arrangements of this country in a vacuum, I shall strongly support the amendment of my noble friend.
Lord Richard: I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said. I was flattered by his reference to me. I hope he bought the book and did not just borrow it from the library. He would have found it modestly priced and well worth the money.
Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. As the author of one book and another which is to come out, I have every sympathy and I will buy his book if he undertakes to buy both of mine.
Lord Richard: It depends how much the noble Lord's books cost and what the value is.
These two amendments are not ones the Committee should accept for one simple reason; that is, they both bring the matter back to this Chamber. After the Royal Commission has reported; after the joint committee has considered it; the matter then has to come back here in order for it to be decided whether this Bill, which the Royal Commission is not discussing, will be implemented.
Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, pointed out—he was right to do so—we would be in the position where the implementation of this Bill, which would have passed the Commons and presumably passed this House as well, would again be subject to the veto which the Opposition hold because of the composition of this Chamber. I do not believe that either the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, or the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, could conceivably expect the Government to accept an amendment which would mean that in perhaps 18 months or two years' time, after the Royal Commission and the joint committee reported, we would come back to this House and be again in thrall to the 300 hereditary Peers who take the Conservative Whip.
212
The figures in this House are always worth remembering when we are considering constitutional matters. I believe 476 Peers take the Conservative Whip; of those, 300 are hereditary. The Labour Party has 175 Peers, of which 18 are hereditary. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in parenthesis, that the Labour Party is perfectly capable of playing its part in running the committees and the work of this House without, if need be, 18 hereditary Peers. I imagine that would be the same for the Liberal Democrats. So the noble Baroness is simply trying to persuade the Committee that we cannot run the business of this House unless there is an overwhelming majority of Conservative hereditary Peers to do it.
The noble Baroness shakes her head. With great respect, that is the inexorable conclusion of the figures on the composition of this Chamber. She can shake her head as much as she likes but she cannot evade the conclusion. The fact of the matter is that, by and large, the hereditary Peers sit on the opposite side of the Chamber—300 of them. I am not prepared to accept, and I trust my party is not prepared to accept, that in order to run the second Chamber of the British legislature we have to perpetuate a system which gives such an enormous in-built Conservative majority to the Opposition in the House of Lords. It is an absurd proposition and should be rejected.
Therefore, to talk about a set of amendments which would mean that in 18 months' or two years' time the issue would have to come back to this Chamber, at which point the 300 hereditary Peers on the other side would no doubt, yet again, be able to make all the noise that they are now making, is, frankly, a proposition which I find deplorable.
Baroness of Knight of Collingtree: I have a question for the noble Lord before he sits down. Is it not the case that if they were constituted as they are at present, the Government could perfectly well vote down what this Chamber decided? Surely the noble Lord's point is not a very strong one.
Lord Richard: With great respect to the noble Baroness, the first answer to that is the fact that the Parliament Acts do not apply to resolutions; indeed, they apply only to Acts of Parliament. Secondly, for this to apply to an Act of Parliament, the procedure would have to start in the other place and then come to this Chamber. Therefore, unless we amend the Parliament Acts so as to give the government majority in the first Chamber—that is, the House of Commons—the right to vote down a resolution passed in this House, there is no other way of doing this.
Baroness Blatch: Does the noble Lord agree that we on these Benches have, throughout the whole history and record of our party in this House, honoured the commitment never to vote down secondary legislation?

213
What is it that makes the noble Lord believe that a resolution of both Houses could be voted down by this party?
Lord Carter: That is not exactly correct. I should remind Members of the Committee that the 1968 Rhodesian sanctions order was voted down.
Lord Richard: My noble friend refers to the Rhodesian order, but a resolution of the House is not technically secondary legislation; indeed, it is a resolution. It does no good for the noble Baroness to shake her head again because, with respect, it does not advance the argument. All it does is make the noble Baroness's head shake. She really must apply herself to the point.
That side of the House is entitled to vote against a resolution of this House. I have no doubt whatever that, if this were to come back in two years' time on the basis of either of these two amendments, that is precisely what noble Lords opposite would do. Why would they do so? The answer is very simple. They would do so for the reason that they are now opposing the Bill; namely, that they want to preserve the Conservative majority here in the second Chamber. It has always been thus.
Lord Marlesford: I wonder whether Members of the Committee paid sufficient attention to the most interesting and important speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. It seemed to me that the noble Lord raised an interesting procedural point. As noble Lords know, I am a child in procedural matters. As I understand it, the mover of an amendment has the right at the end of the debate to propose to withdraw it. Normally that is taken on the nod, that is to say, without a Division, with all of us walking through the Lobbies.
As I understood the noble Lord, he suggested that at some time in the future an amendment might be put forward by a Member of this side of the Chamber, which the mover subsequently proposes to withdraw. He said that he would oppose the withdrawal and, presumably. that means that he would vote against it being withdrawn. Indeed, if Members on this side of the Chamber (and perhaps on the Government side) decided that they would like to have the amendment withdrawn, they would ensure that it was withdrawn because they would vote for that. I am not absolutely sure how that helps the noble Lord, Lord Harris, because the result would be precisely the same. It will not have been a question of deciding on the merits of the amendment; it will merely mean that we will have spent quite a lot of time going through the Division Lobbies to decide that the amendment should, by leave, be withdrawn. withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord by referring to a debate on 19th March 1998 (Hansard cols.919 to 922) on the Crime and Disorder Bill and to the Division which took place thereafter. On that occasion, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, asked, with the leave of the House, to withdraw her amendment. At that point, the noble Lord,
214
Lord Henley, the Opposition Chief Whip, said "No", and a Division followed. There is nothing unprecedented about what I said earlier; indeed, the Conservative Party has done this on many occasions in the past.
Lord Eden of Winton: We are in fact discussing two amendments proposed by my noble friends Lord Boardman and Lady Blatch. Of the two, I have to say that I prefer the former amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Boardman. I do so for the precise reason that, were his amendment to be accepted, the time-scale likely to be involved would be shorter. In other words, we would not have to wait for a committee of both Houses to report, as I understand would be the case with the amendment of my noble friend Lady Blatch. Following the report of the Royal Commission, I believe that it would take some time for a committee of both Houses to report.
As I understand it, the Royal Commission is doing its level best to report by the end of this calendar year. If that is the case, what my noble friend Lord Boardman proposes is extremely modest. He has suggested that the implementation of this Bill should await the report—and only the report—of the Royal Commission at the end of this year. That is not asking a great deal.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, or the noble Lord, Lord Harris—indeed, it may have been both of them in curious harmony—indicated that there was the potential for delay beyond the end of the calendar year when the Royal Commission reports because of the proposal in both amendments that there should be a resolution of both Houses. I hope that I am right in saying this; but, if I am wrong, no doulbt someone will shoot me down. It seems to me that the sense of the proposal that there should be such a resolution lies in the fact that that would provide at least an opportunity for some account to be taken of the findings of the Royal Commission.
I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Monson—although it may have been one of my noble friends—who put forward the view that rather than proceeding as we are and taking a once-and-for-all decision in advance of knowing the nature of the findings of the Royal Commission, we should at least hear what it has to suggest. I cannot believe for one moment that the Government have set up this commission with their hands tied. Surely the Royal Commission has full scope and opportunity to make whatever recommendations it may choose. I suspect that the commission will take into account the terms of this Bill in its deliberations. However, it will know that by the time this Bill reaches its later stages it is likely to have been amended. despite the manifesto commitment, by Amendment No.31. tabled in the name of a number of Cross-Bench Peers, including the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. If that were done, there would then be provision for retaining a number of hereditary Peers. The importance of that in the context of these amendments, and bearing in mind the possibility of the Royal Commission reporting with some regard to the position of those hereditary Peers, is that the latter might be retained for a longer period.

215
If the Government have agreed to the Weatherill amendment, which provides for the retention of a number of hereditary Peers—presumably for the good order and better working of the House; otherwise, I cannot understand why they have done it—they might also want to preserve that same group for a while longer so that we can understand the full import of the Royal Commission's findings.
I hope very much that the Government will feel able to accept at least the modest proposal of my noble friend Lord Boardman because it makes good common sense. If we are embarked upon this major change—I think every noble Lord in the Chamber accepts that there is no question of stopping the process—let us do whatever we can during the course of it to ensure that what comes after the change makes good sense. It is important that the position of the Royal Commission is not fully circumscribed by the passing of this Bill and that we should not bring it into force until the commission has had a chance to report. I hope very much that that will be the case. I do not see this as a wrecking amendment in any sense. I certainly do not feel that it is a wrecking amendment and I do not think that it should be interpreted as a wrecking amendment. I accept the principle of the Bill as predicated in the manifesto. The manifesto commitment will still be honoured when this Bill ultimately becomes law. All one is asking in a modest way is to hear something of what will take the place of this Chamber in the future before this Bill is enacted. I hope very much that the Government will feel able to accept at least the proposal of my noble friend Lord Boardman.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I would regret very much leaving your Lordships' House but I am prepared to accept that it may be inevitable. I would particularly regret leaving it in the vacuum mentioned by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. I feel passionately that I want to see what happens next. I accept the argument proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that once we know what will happen we could vote that out. However, it is far more likely in the tradition of your Lordships' House that we would accept the proposal and it would be voted out in another place if it made any sense. I suspect that that is what terrifies the party opposite; namely, that the proposal would be voted down by another place which does not wish to lose its powers.
Therefore it is highly important that we should see what is proposed and, furthermore, that there should be an incentive for another place to vote for a sensible measure in order to get rid of the hereditary Peers who remain. Why should we have a reason to stay if there was a proper and sensible alternative to our existence here? The difficulty which the opposite side has is that this matter has been outstanding for a hundred years. The Labour Party has longed to get rid of the hereditary Peers for a hundred years. It has longed for all kinds of things for a hundred years. Happily the collapse of the Soviet Union has abolished some of them. Socialism is rather out of fashion these days. Nevertheless, this archaic business of a hundred year-old shibboleth is
216
talked of nowadays in terms of modernity. The whole thing is completely laughable. However, I support the amendment with all my force and if a Division is called I shall vote for it. It is of prime interest to me and I would not mind a bit seeing it go through.
Lord Strathclyde: This has been an important and significant debate. I suspect that we shall return many times to some of the themes that have been mentioned before the various stages of the Bill are completed. There are two immediate points to make. First, these amendments go some way to deal with the issue of no stage one without stage two. Secondly, they probe what I have called the tension between this Bill being a stand alone Bill and it being part of a two-stage process.
I am increasingly of the view that what the Government intend is that this should be a stand alone Bill and that therefore we should treat it as such. When the noble Baroness replies to the debate it would be helpful if she could give a definitive view of whether this is a stand alone Bill or what guarantees the Government are giving about the long-term future of this Chamber. It would be useful for the Committee to be told that.
Amendment No.13 is grouped with Amendment No.112 and also with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch. The effects of the amendments are broadly similar. They give Parliament a lock on the commencement of the Act until we know more about what may be in store for this Chamber in the future. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Boardman asks that we should at least have seen the report of the Royal Commission before purging the House of Lords. The amendment of my noble friend Lady Blatch goes a little further and asks that we should have the benefit of the report of the Joint Committee of both Houses before purging the Chamber. In that context I should remind both the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the statistics on the composition of this Chamber show that the Conservative Party has about 41 per cent. Even though I am no mathematician, that does not strike me as being a majority.
I do not think there is anything inherently unacceptable about these amendments. Indeed, I have come to the conclusion—Members of the Committee opposite have heard me say this before—that what is so reprehensible about this whole process is the sense that the Government are plunging ahead without knowing what will come next. The Government's policy is, "Act before you think, not think before you act. " That is one of the great hallmarks of this Government. It is not a distinguished epitaph for this Government to be remembered as the most thoughtless, least consensual and most partisan constitutional reformers in the history of the United Kingdom.
This is an unfit way to treat Parliament, or indeed the liberties of the subject of which Parliament is the guardian. In response to an intervention from my noble friend Lady Knight, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that this is the kind of amendment which was excluded in the House of Commons. However, I am afraid to say that in another place on 3rd March 1999 a

217
proposed new clause dealt with the issue of the duration of the Act and stated that the Act would cease to have effect after the final report of the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament had been debated. Therefore even another place has debated this matter; it is right that we should do so too.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his now infamous threat—possibly even opinion—in our Second Reading debate said that any kind of commencement clause was intolerable, The Government may think that that says all that needs to be said about this amendment; namely, that up with this the Government Front Bench will not put. I think that it says everything we need to know about the Government's attitude to constitutional reform. The Government's philosophy of "because I say so" is not enough. They have to deal with the issues that have been raised in this debate because we are dealing with the reform of Parliament. This Chamber has a right to know where it is going and what we shall end up with. Even if we do not have that right, surely the people of the country have the right to know what will happen. Even if the hereditary Peers do not have that right, should not the life Peers have an opinion right at the start of this process rather than half-way through? It is also right to expect that the Government themselves should know where we are going. We do not know that; the people of the United Kingdom do not know; the Government do not know; the Royal Commission has been asked for an opinion but that has not yet been delivered.
None of these amendments asks for a fatal delay; they are quite humble in their ambition. A small delay is asked for. We should know what kind of Chamber the Royal Commission proposes before we vote out of existence a Chamber that has worked well. We should know the kind of Chamber that Parliament favours before we vote out of existence a Chamber that has worked well. The irony is that later in the Committee stage we shall discuss the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, which may leave hereditary Peers here for a further generation. Yet if the Royal Commission reports in December, these amendments would leave the hereditary Peers here for perhaps one extra month, or a few weeks more than that, after the end of this parliamentary Session; or, if we wait for a Joint Committee of both Houses to report, for perhaps six months or a year beyond that. These are not long delays in the 100 years that the Labour Party has waited for this great reform; it is no time at all.
What is the Government's attitude towards the Joint Committee of both Houses? Do they have a view as to when it will be set up after the Royal Commission has reported? Will that happen relatively quickly in a matter of weeks, or will the Government wish to wait far longer? Do they know how many members the joint committee will have and what the split will be between Members of this House and another place? Do they have a view regarding what timetable, if any, will be set for the joint committee's report?
My concern is that I still do not know what the Government are so afraid of. Are they afraid that the Royal Commission or the joint committee might see
218
value in elements of the present House; or that they might not be able to justify in a year's time the high-handed action that they are pressing through now?
In considering the two amendments that are before us, I must say to my noble friend Lord Boardman that I marginally prefer the one proposed by my noble friend Lady Blatch because it allows the views of Parliament to be heard as well as that of the Royal Commission. If we believe in Parliament, it is important that its view should be heard.
Either way, this debate is about asking the Government to think again, to show some respect to the Royal Commission that they set up, albeit reluctantly, and to the two Houses of Parliament. before insisting on driving Members out of an ancient and successful House. The charge that the Government have to answer is a significant one, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: We have had another ingenious general debate. This evening we hive discussed the long-term reform of Parliament, procedure in this House and in another place, secondary legislation and the Royal Commission. We have also spent some time, albeit not completely directed in the right way, on Amendments Nos.13, 112 and 113, to which I shall now attempt to reply.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, are in the Government's view another way of simply delaying the fulfilment of the pledge in the manifesto—I have no hesitation whatsoever in repeating that—to place the Bill, which we always said was the first stage of reform, on the statute book. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Crawley for pointing out that the Little Book of Calm was on the best seller list together with the manifesto. So I imagine that it will come as no surprise to the Committee to learn that the Government are not happy to accept either of these amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, in introducing his amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, said that there was no intention in the amendment to undermine the basic principle of the Bill and that their concern related more to the mechanics of the way in which the Government were proceeding to achieve this reform.
I say to both noble Lords, gently and with considerable respect, that that simply brings us back to the point that I made at Second Reading, which was taken up several times during that debate. If noble Lords are behind the principle of reform, it is rather strange that, during the 45 years in which the party they support was in government, following the first occasion when it was proposed that hereditary Peers should not sit in this House, no proposal for reform was made which was in their view sensible and which they could support. We are now dealing with the Government's Bill as proposed. It has always been clear that reform was proposed in two stages.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, provides that no resolution of both Houses could be made until the Royal Commission had

219
reported. The noble Lord will be aware that it is most unusual to provide for the commencement of an Act of Parliament by resolution of the Houses of Parliament. I imagine that he will say in response that this is a significant and unique Bill—
The Earl of Onslow: I apologise for intervening, but will the noble Baroness answer one very simple question? Has she any idea at all what she would like in stage two?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am always tempted by the noble Earl's intriguing suggestions. I am sure there will be plenty of opportunities for us to consider my views, the Government's views and those of your Lordships at an appropriate time. This is not the appropriate time. We are considering the passage of the Bill and three precise amendments to it.
The Earl of Onslow: I did not ask what the noble Baroness's views were. I merely asked whether she had any.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Yes, I have.
It is worth considering the way in which the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, would work. It suggests that an Act of Parliament passed by the usual methods could then be challenged by Parliament itself. I am inclined to accept the views of my noble friends Lord Desai and Lord Richard, and not to subscribe to the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell. I believe that in those circumstances it is almost certain that the political majority in this House would enforce a perpetual veto on whatever was proposed.
We have been round this course on several occasions—
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: Will the noble Baroness accept the fact that this House has always done so in the past?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am afraid that I do not entirely follow the noble Lord's intervention. The House has always done what in the past?
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: As I understood it, the last reform, in 1968, was agreed by this House but was turned down in another place.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps I may gently correct the noble Lord. It was in fact the White Paper on proposals that was put before this House and agreed. There was then a subsequent discussion about the Rhodesia sanctions legislation which was referred to in
220
an exchange on an intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The Bill then went to another place, and we all know the history of that.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps the noble Baroness will give way. I believe that that is not quite correct. There was a Parliament (No.2) Bill which went through this House and approved the reforms that were proposed.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I stand corrected by the noble Lord, but I believe his reference was to the previous occasion, on which the hereditary Peers voted on the White Paper proposals. However, perhaps I may move on.
The noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Richard, probably correctly predicted the future in suggesting that whatever was proposed by the Royal Commission would find both adherents and opponents and that, together, they would almost certainly delay any subsequent reform and indeed the implementation of this Bill.
As I said, we have been round this course a number of times. The Government have made very clear why they intend, and have pledged, to proceed to the reform of this House in two stages. One noble Lord, in speaking to an earlier amendment, said, and I support his view, that smaller and, more importantly, self-contained reforms are often the best way to proceed on constitutional matters. Anyone who genuinely wants to reform this House should join us in that approach and, frankly, not seek to delay reform by this kind of method.
I agree that some of the arguments made by Members of the Committee today are apparently rational and have the impact of an interesting discussion which would be worthy of appropriate debate when we come to discuss both the outcome of the Royal Commission and the next stages of reform. But I cannot say too often—
Lord Elton: Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me for intervening in a debate for most of which I have been absent. The Minister repeats a point that I have heard before. The Minister's reference was, "when we come to discuss". But it will not be "we"; it will be "they" so far as the hereditary Peers are concerned. It is because we are locked out of that discussion that we do not feel we can fulfil our duty to see that our departure does not leave the electorate undefended.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The noble Lord may have missed the earlier discussion among your Lordships. Perhaps I did not use the appropriate expression. When I said "we", I was referring to the House in general and to the life Peers who, as we have discussed, we on this side of the House feel are probably more than capable of defending both the electorate and discussing the future of the House in a sensible fashion.
As I have said before—I said it at Second Reading and in the various debates that we have rightly had on this subject—we see the Bill as a self-contained act of reform. That does not, however, suggest that it is a single act of reform, to reply directly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. We are aware—

221
again, I perhaps repeat myself; the Committee must forgive me but some of these arguments have been repeated several times&—that there have been several attempts this century that have shown that abolishing hereditary rights to sit and vote will simply not happen if it is tied to the search for a perfect long-term solution. As I said at Second Reading, the Government are not prepared to fall into that particular trap in 1999. We do not believe that we should do nothing just because we do not intend, and it is not yet possible, to do everything.
Amendment No.113 is tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Some Members of the Committee seem to prefer that amendment; some seem to prefer the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. After the earlier discussion on Amendment No.10A, I shall assume, unless I am contradicted, that the amendment of the noble Baroness is not official Opposition policy&—although of course the noble Baroness is a Member of the Opposition Front Bench and a Shadow Minister. I shall assume that the amendment is not official Opposition policy unless I am contradicted.
As the noble Baroness has said, and as other Members of the Committee have agreed&—
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Baroness is making a rather clever point, which I missed. There was an obvious pause, allowing me to intervene. If she was making a clever point, could she go through it again in a rather more simple fashion?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: To put it at its baldest, we are waiting for the noble Lord to give his advice to members of his party. If the noble Lord, Lord Harris, were to suggest that the Committee should divide on the amendment, is that something that the noble Lord would support?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Baroness was here when I made my speech and heard me say that I marginally preferred the amendment of the noble Baroness. Lady Blatch. The noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Boardman have not yet replied. They may take the view that their amendments are imperfect. At the moment it is an entirely hypothetical matter. It may he that their amendments are perfect in every way. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is indulging in a bit of sport, a ploy; that is what he was on about. I am certainly not going to play the games that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, wants me to play.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am sure that the Committee will understand from that intervention precisely what the noble Lord intends. We on these Benches are a little confused. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who we regard as a distinguished Member of the Opposition Front Bench and spokesman for her party, has tabled the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. It is a little rich for the noble Baroness to be very concerned and confused about my single
222
amendment when the noble Baroness has no idea what size the interim Chamber will be or what the stage-two proposals are likely to be.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am attempting to address the amendment which stands in lie name of the noble Baroness. I am very happy to discuss numbers with her. As I said in an earlier response, I think that that issue is more relevant to a debate on the second stage of reform than to this Bill. The noble Baroness said, and the noble Lord agreed with her, that the resolution of both Houses of Parliament on the basis of the Bill should not even be put to either House until the Joint Committee of both Houses has reported on the findings of the Royal Commission.
By my reckoning, that would mean that there would be no possibility of the Act coming into force until at least the end of the next Session of Parliament. Perhaps, with a bit of luck, it would spill over into the Session after next. In that case, I imagine that the noble Baroness would argue that the Act should not come into force until after the next general election, when perhaps the electorate might be asked to give its view on both stages of reform. Then, perhaps subsequently, we would hear yet again, as we have from many noble Lords today—notably from the noble Baroness, Lady Knight—that the electorate neither understands nor appreciates the terms of these constitutional matters. However, I should point out to the noble Baroness that we operate in the real world and that if the report of the Joint Committee were to recommend, for example, some variation of the Royal Commission proposals, we would be faced yet again with the cry that the Government should do nothing until some further resolution was made.
To put it at its most simple, the Government do not intend to play the game (to use the terminology of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde) and to debate this serious issue (to use the terminology of the noble Baroness) in this way again. This time, in this form of legislation, on this Bill, there is one simple question: "Do you believe that hereditary Peers any longer have a place in Parliament?"—and the answer to that must be "Yes" or "No".
The Earl of Onslow: We have accepted that by accepting the Weatherill amendment, which is all about hereditary Peers. I am delighted that the noble Baroness has done so. It shows great flexibility of mind and great intellect worthy of her Oxbridge education, but the noble Baroness cannot have it both ways.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am always delighted to be flattered by the noble Earl. But he may not have noticed that we have not yet reached the Weatherill amendment, although the Government were anxious that we should perhaps consider that amendment first in order to obviate some of the discussions that we have had in the last two days in Committee and no doubt will have again subsequently. That agreement was not achieved. We are now on an earlier amendment. I am seeking to discuss with the Committee why it is that the

223
Government are not prepared to look hypothetically at the possibilities of either that amendment or further reform.
The Government believe that reform can succeed only on the basis of approaching this simple, unique, historic Bill on a one-stage, first-stage method of reform. That is why we have consistently proposed and argued for it. That is why we ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Eden of Winton: Before my noble friend rises, I have listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness has said. As I indicated, I somewhat leant towards the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Boardman because I thought that the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch would go for a longer period of time. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde asked a number of questions about the Joint Committee of both Houses. In order that I may make the sort of judgment I may be called upon to make in a moment or two it is extremely important that I should have more information about the Joint Committee of both Houses. Surely the Government are not waiting for some other committee to report to them on what the Joint Committee of both Houses will be, how it will be comprised, when it will be put into place, how long it is likely to take and what its remit will be. Can the noble Baroness give some answers to the points made by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I can give the noble Lord the response that will always be given in your Lordships' House to matters of procedure of this kind, particularly to those which affect both Houses of Parliament. When the time comes, I am quite sure that those matters will be appropriately discussed by the usual channels. As to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, concerning the draft standing orders on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, which we shall come to—I did not mention it before because the noble Lord was not in his place—the noble Lord may be aware that the Clerk of the House put a draft to the Procedure Committee on 30th March, and that is now in the Library.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Am I right in thinking that the manifesto, as well as making this decision, stated then that there would be a joint committee? If that decision was made so long ago, it is surprising that it is not possible to give any details of the thinking behind it.
Lord Strathclyde: I was going to make exactly the same point. The issue of the joint committee is not one just for the usual channels; it is a matter not only of government policy, but of manifesto policy. When I asked about when the Government intended to set up that committee, that was nothing to do with the usual channels; that was to do with the Government. I asked whether it would be in a matter of weeks or a matter of months; how long the Government envisage it lasting; and what they believe the balance between the two Houses will be.
224
Those are fairly specific questions. They are not the Second Reading points which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, thinks I make all the time. We have not had answers. If we cannot have answers, it is more difficult for my noble friend Lady Blatch to take a view as to whether this question should be divided on now. These are important issues. If the noble Baroness does not know the answers, it would be much easier for her to say that she does not know the answers.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Of course I do not know the precise mechanics. I do not in any way feel ashamed of making that point. I am sure that there are many procedural questions of that kind which the usual channels will debate—questions about the form, the nature of the membership and the timing. We have always said that this would be set up once the Royal Commission had reported. That is not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, pointed out, in the manifesto because the manifesto referred exclusively to the Joint Committee of both Houses and not to the Royal Commission. But there has never been any question that once the Royal Commission had reported the Joint Committee of both Houses would be set up.
I am sure the noble Lord is aware that the White Paper said, in regard to the further procedures on this matter, that we would hope that both Houses of Parliament would be able to consider the findings both of the Royal Commission and of the Joint Committee of both Houses at some stage before the date of the next general election. If the noble Lord is now going to ask me to give him the date of the next general election, I fear I must disappoint him.
Lord Boardman: The noble Baroness accused me of putting down my amendment purely for the purpose of delay. That is not so. The purpose of the amendment is to persuade the Government to tell us what they have in store—to delay the application of the Act, if the Bill becomes an Act, until we have a Royal Commission report pointing out what is in store for us. They should not pull down this ancient structure of the House of Lords without having some plan on paper to show what we might expect and without having something of which we can be proud. So the noble Baroness is quite wrong in accusing me of delay. The sooner it could happen the better. It would have been much better if the Government had thought of a Royal Commission before introducing the Bill instead of having to be persuaded to do it.
A question arises as to whether my amendment or that of my noble friend Lady Blatch is to be preferred. By the time we vote on the amendments we will have agreed which would be the better line. There is a considerable degree of support for both amendments. I certainly very much support what my noble friend Lady Blatch said. I shall not go into what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. His remarks came strangely

225
and were rather ill-informed as to the purpose of the amendments. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. We will reach the other amendments in due course.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No!
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In that case, I have to put the Question, That Amendment No.13 be agreed to.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I think that this might be a convenient moment for us to break. In moving that the House do now resume, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage should begin again not before 8.53 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1999
7.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th April be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the regulations apply to Northern Ireland only and cover a limited number of aspects of electoral procedure for the forthcoming European parliamentary elections. This is in contrast to the Great Britain regulations which were far more wide-ranging, covering the conduct of all aspects of the new regional list voting system for Great Britain. The regulations before us today introduce mach more minor and technical amendments to existing statute. They are tailored to fit the particular local circumstances of Northern Ireland, where the single transferable vote system of proportional representation will continue to be the electoral system used.
Despite being modest in content, this draft instrument is nevertheless essential to bring European parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland into line with recently passed United Kingdom-wide legislation. As many in your Lordships' House will know, the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, which received Royal Assent on 14th January, introduced the new electoral system for European elections. This new list system applies to Great Britain only. The STV system of proportional representation which has been employed in Northern Ireland for European parliamentary elections since 1979 remains unaltered.
However, the 1999 Act changed some of the terminology applicable to all European Parliamentary elections in the UK, and this draft legislation reflects these technical changes for Northern Ireland Consequently, references to the European "parliamentary constituencies" and "representatives". referred to under the 1978 Act, will be amended to read "Electoral Regions" and "Members of the European Parliament".
In a similarly technical amendment, this piece of legislation also makes provision, in Regulation 5, in respect of by-elections for European parliamentary seats. Again this is an amendment consequential to the 1999 European Parliamentary Elections Act, which replaced the provisions in the 1978 Act by delegating them to subordinate legislation. I must stress that both the existing mechanism for triggering a by-election and the electoral procedures involved are unaltered by these amendments.
In accordance with the practice which was adopted in Northern Ireland for the Forum election of 1996 and the Northern Ireland Assembly elections last year, we have decided not to apply Section 93 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Under the Act broadcast media are prevented from covering a "constituency" campaign issue without the consent of all the candidates standing within that constituency. Such consent is not required to cover issues considered "national".
The distinction between "national" and "constituency" issues is often somewhat artificial, particularly for European parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland where the whole of Northern Ireland is treated as one constituency. In addition, it is clearly difficult to seek the permission of each one of the large number of candidates who may choose to stand in the electoral region. Disapplying this provision will make practical sense and will for these elections bring Northern Ireland into line with the European Parliamentary Elections Regulations for the rest of the UK.
The draft regulations before your Lordships' House make provision for the application of the provisions of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 to European parliamentary elections held in Northern Ireland. This Act enables political parties to register their names and, if they so choose, their party emblem. Once registered a party benefits from protection against the unauthorised use of its registered name, and its candidates may request the inclusion of their party emblem on the ballot paper.
Regulations 6(12) and (15) of this draft are necessary to amend existing regulations to allow parties registered under the Act to place their registered name and emblem on the ballot for European parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland should they so choose. The provisions of the Act do not automatically apply to European parliamentary elections held in Northern Ireland. Noble Lords will see that the schedule to this draft instrument provides a new specimen ballot paper illustrating these changes.
We have also decided that it would be appropriate to update the amount which each candidate may spend in election expenses. The limit of candidates' election

227
expenses for European elections was last set in 1994 for the election of that year. We considered that it would be appropriate to review the level at which the expenses were set, and consequently the revised figures in these draft regulations reflect an inflationary increase on the 1994 figures to bring them up to date. As I have previously mentioned, the electoral system to be employed in Northern Ireland in June has not altered, so there has been no necessity to devise a new system of calculating candidates' expenses, as there has been in Great Britain.
A further important amendment which this legislation brings forward is an amendment to Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. The expenditure which can be incurred by a third party without the approval of an election agent is determined by Section 75 of this Act in the amount of just £5. However this provision as applied to parliamentary elections was found to be in breach of Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights. It was the judgment of the Court in the Bowman case that setting the limit on such expenditure at such a low threshold placed an unjustified restriction on freedom of expression. Accordingly, we have increased the £5 limit for these European parliamentary elections to £5,000.
I hope your Lordships will agree that this increased figure accords with the spirit of the recommendations contained within the report of the Neill Committee. The report advocated a limit of £500 for each parliamentary constituency. However, for European parliamentary elections Northern Ireland is not divided into constituencies but the whole of Northern Ireland is treated as one much larger electoral region. Consequently, we have therefore opted for the higher amount of £5,000 to cover the entire electoral region. This amount is identical to that which will apply for each of the electoral regions in Great Britain.
In conclusion, this draft instrument makes provision for a number of relatively technical amendments to the existing statutory framework for European elections in Northern Ireland which, while relatively minor, are nevertheless essential if the June elections are to run smoothly. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th April be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Dubs.)
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the aims of the regulations. My first comment concerns these regulations and in addition those that apply to Scotland and Wales, which have been debated. Surely, this indicates a need for primary legislation in a new representation of the people Act. This would give the House the opportunity to debate and amend proposals in a Bill—a luxury that we do not have with secondary legislation.
I understand that these regulations are technical and mirror much of the Great Britain regulations which were debated in your Lordships' House on 22nd April. These regulations are specifically tailored to fit the local circumstances in Northern Ireland. I wish to ask three
228
questions. First, I deal with the issue of recounts. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish exposed a flaw in the legislation. He has done battle with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I understand that the single transferable vote has been in place in Northern Ireland since 1979. Is the Minister able to assure me that a candidate who may be well down the list will be able to call for a recount where the figures are close and can be vital to the final result?
Secondly, in Regulation 6(4) I am mystified by the hefty hike from £5 to £5,000. I thought that this item was concerned with the required deposit, but surely the previous figure was £1,000, not £5. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could assist me with my comprehension.
I come last to by-elections. I refer the Minister to the example of the ballot paper on page 4 of the regulations. For ease, suppose that the first three are elected, with number four coming next. Then for some reason one of the three Members leaves the European Parliament. At that stage number four will be deemed to be elected. However, a difficulty will arise as he comes from another party. Proportionality would be lost and it would be a return to first-past-the-post. Can the Minister explain how what appears to be completely illogical and against government thinking is acceptable in this instance?
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches support the regulations in their entirety. It is pleasing to note that now in Scotland, England and Wales we also have the benefit of proportional representation in the European parliamentary elections for the first time. I have little to ask about the measure because most of it is self-explanatory. I thought that the part on by-elections would have answered the question posed by the noble Baroness.
My question is concerned with the increase from £5 to £5,000. I went back through the legislation and looked at the 1978 Act. I found that in that year the figure that could be spent by an individual was 50p and in 1983 it went up to £5. In 1999 it has gone up to £5,000. That shows quite a jump in inflation. My colleagues in the Alliance Party thought that perhaps they should not make it common knowledge among all their supporters in case they went out and spent vast amounts of money on the election.
I have one question on the form of the ballot paper. Will independent candidates be able to choose their own emblem? At the moment it appears that a blank space by a name may be seen in some cases as a disadvantage. I do not believe that it will cause the electorate any particular difficulty. I have monitored many elections around the world. I remember monitoring elections in South Africa where sometimes help had to be given to the electorate in finding their candidates. This was helped by members of the Inkatha party. Inkatha joined the election at the last minute and a sticker had to be added at the bottom. When assistance was asked for in

229
voting for the particular party, all they had to say was "On the bottom". Apart from that, we support these provisions.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am sure that half an hour ago the noble Lord, like others participating in this debate, looked forward to addressing a full House. For some reason or other that I cannot understand, most noble Lords have disappeared. The Minister explained how the regulations had been tailored to meet the needs of the slightly different system in Northern Ireland and various other conditions there. I believe that I have a duty to acquaint your Lordships with how that different system came about. In the late 1970s when the then government of the United Kingdom was preparing for the very first European elections they identified the one party that should be guaranteed a Euro-seat. They did better than that and went on to identify by name the one candidate who must be guaranteed that seat.
To achieve that result the then government decided to impose proportional representation on Northern Ireland alone. That was why we had it 20 years ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom. But to make that scheme work in 1979 Her Majesty's then government had to upset the nice round figure that had been decreed for the European Parliament and create an odd figure by adding one to ensure that Northern Ireland did not have the two seats to which it was just about entitled but three to make the system of proportional representation work and ensure the election of the candidate who was named by the government. I shall not embarrass that individual by naming him. but he is not present here.
The two seats would not have secured the election of what I may call their man. Therefore, the rigged election, having worked in 1979, continued to keep in place the chosen one of Irish politics for 20 years, which is something of a record. In fairness to noble Lords I felt that I should explain why this curious situation—which is not quite the same as in the rest of the United Kingdom—has applied to Northern Ireland for an unbroken record of 20 years.
The modern extraordinary variation lies in the increase from £5 to £5,000. I hope that I have got the terminology right. There may be some confusion about the amount that a person not authorised by an election agent may spend to influence the election of a candidate. It is not, as I understand it, anything to do with that amount which is permitted to be spent by the candidate and/or his agent.
This time this startling change was made not by the government of the day but at the behest of the European Court of Human Rights. I have to say, with very great respect, that however learned in law the Commission members may be, their ridiculous ruling shows clearly that they have never fought elections and still less could they have served as an election agent.
One result of all of that is certain: national corrupt practices courts will have to brace themselves for overtime duties in the year ahead after the European elections.
230
I shall restrain myself from comment on the proposed form of the ballot paper, beyond suggesting that maybe the designers of the graffiti tailplanes for British Airways might have done a slightly better job.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments made and will do my best to answer the specific questions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, is aware of why we do not normally have primary legislation for issues relating to Northern Ireland. After devolution, the Northern Ireland Assembly will be able to deal with these matters as primary legislation; for the moment we are stuck with a system which has some faults but which is the one we have been using for some time now.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has said that the Stormont Assembly, when it begins to work, will deal with such matters. Will it have jurisdiction over electoral law, particularly in regard to European elections?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, no, it will not have jurisdiction over electoral law. The noble Lord is quite right and I thank him for that. As a general proposition, however, under this particular procedure a great deal of the Northern Ireland legislation which we deal with in this House will be passed in future to the Assembly; but not matters that stay within the responsibility of this Parliament.
Turning to the specific points which have been raised, the first question the noble Baroness asked related to recounts and whether someone lower down the list could call for a recount. Normally, it may be appropriate in relation to a person lower down the list and where a change would influence the outcome in the vote, but I would prefer to write to the noble Baroness and give her more information. I suspect that the answer will be that the returning officer will exercise his or her discretion in each particular instance.
I deal now with the £5,000 and the question of deposits. The £1,000 deposit is what a candidate has to put up. If the candidate fails to achieve a certain proportion or quota of the vote, the candidate will forfeit the deposit, as is the case in parliamentary elections here.
The £5,000 figure—an increase from £5, which mirrors Great Britain legislation—is the sum of money which can be spent by a third party without the approval of the election agent. A third party, not a candidate, is therefore allowed to spend up to £5,000 in this election in Northern Ireland: presumably expenditure intended to make some political point as regards the elections. That is quite different from the deposit that a candidate has to put down, which the candidate may lose if his or her vote is rather small.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is there no limit on the number of individuals who could put forward £5,000?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I was afraid that question was coming! My understanding is that there is no limit, but

231
I shall look into it further. If by any chance that answer is not correct, I shall write to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness and make it clear.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I put this point to the Minister while he meditates on the question which has just been put to him. This is not a facetious matter and should not be treated as such. One can envisage an election influenced by certain unofficial groups or lobby groups, and one thinks immediately of angry farmers or angry lorry drivers. If they are all permitted—and they are, as I understand the regulations—to spend £5,000, we could end up with other candidates beyond their chosen candidate benefiting by some £50,000 more. That could be spent quite legitimately, not by the candidate or his agent, but by the lobby group, without any approval from Parliament or from anyone else.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I want to look into this further. If what I have said needs to be elaborated on in any way or if it should not he fully correct, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
I draw a clear distinction between the sum of money which is a deposit and the amount of money which can be spent by a third party. It is the latter which is the subject of the discussions which we have just had.
The noble Baroness also asked a question about by-elections. Let me explain how by-elections will work. I do not think that the noble Baroness has it quite right in the way she described it. If there is a by-election, there will be a straightforward election based on a first-past-the-post contest to fill the single vacancy. It will not pass down the list to a candidate who did not succeed.
I appreciate that that is a different procedure from that adopted in the elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly, but it is a procedure which we have been using in Northern Ireland ever since these arrangements were first put in place. I do not think that we have had any by-elections in those years, but we are certainly not seeking to change that.
The noble Lord. Lord Redesdale, asked about the use of the emblem on the ballot paper. Only registered political parties can use the emblem. Independent candidates would not be able to do so. On the sample ballot paper which has been printed they would simply be designated as independent candidates, together with the other details about them.
I believe that I have dealt with all the questions that have been put and I commend the regulations to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.53 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.18 to 8.53 p.m.]

House of Lords Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux Lord Randall of St. Budeaux had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.14:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2)")
The noble Lord said: On Tuesday 20th April. we had a full debate on Amendments Nos.14, 29 and 109. I have decided not to initiate further debate on this tonight. However, I reserve the right to speak on the matter at a later stage. I therefore ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move Amendment No.14, and to say a few words on it. I did not do so previously. I believe that it is in order. We were confused on Tuesday, first, due to the time of night at which we debated the amendment, and secondly, because at that time the amendment was grouped with the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Selsdon on which many of us concentrated. I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, answered some of the points, but because the amendment is important, it is worth retreading briefly some of the ground.
It is an important amendment because it is a possible alternative to the Weatherill amendment, which does not have universal support in the House and which we have yet to discuss. It would be helpful, therefore, to have a fuller discussion on this amendment.
I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Randall, to explain in a little more detail how the voting system will work. This is a House of fluctuating numbers, depending on the discussion and the time of day of that discussion. How would the votes be weighted so that a sensible result occurred on a Division?
I should like also to clarify one point which the noble Lord, Lord Randall, made at col.1138 of the Official Report of 20th April. He said:
"The Government would get their business immediately".
Lord Haskel: Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl a question. Is it in order to debate an amendment which has not been moved, and to ask the Peer concerned to respond after he has said that he will not move his amendment?
The Earl of Caithness: It is. The amendment is in the name of the House and anyone can speak to it even though it is not moved by the noble Lord on the Marshalled List. If the noble Lord considers the Standing Orders, I think that he may find the reference at page 111, or close to that page.
At col.1138 the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said that the Government will "get their business immediately ". Perhaps I may probe a little more. One of the great strengths of this House is that the Government do not always get their business immediately. I have said before, and I shall say again on many occasions, that one of the great strengths of this House is that the government of the day can be defeated. What provision does the noble Lord have in mind with regard to

233
weighting a vote so that the Government can be defeated and another place have the time to think again on the issue?
I turn to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said in his brief reply to the noble Lord. I note a contradiction in the noble and learned Lord's argument. It is always nice to find that. At col.1150 of the Official Report of 20th April he said:
"Going through the seven points that underlie the noble Lord's speech. I believe that each one can be demonstrated either to be wrong or flawed".
At col.1149 the noble and learned Lord agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on his first point. It is a small point, but it is rather fun when a noble and learned Lord makes a contradiction.
First, would the noble and learned Lord and the Government take a more benign attitude to the amendment if it were limited only to stage one so that the purport underlying the noble Lord's proposal would come to an end when the Government brought in their phase two? Secondly, the noble and learned Lord spoke to the noble Lord's third point, on the number of hereditary Peers who would be left. Would it be more acceptable to the noble and learned Lord and the Government if one limited the number of hereditary Peers right at the start? The days of the part-time politician are over, due to these reforms; and phase two will make it even less likely that someone can participate in this Chamber on a part-time basis. If one were to state that those hereditary Peers who had not attended, say, on average 25 per cent of the sittings of the last two Sessions would not be considered, the number of hereditary Peers would reduce quite remarkably, and the phased operation proposed by the noble Lord would then come into play. Therefore, there would not be so many hereditary Peers, which is what the Government want. I should be grateful for a reply to those points. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Geddes: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Caithness for giving us the opportunity to re-open the debate on the three amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. I discussed with the noble Lord outside the Chamber what I intended to say.
I apologise to your Lordships in advance because, although previously I had no opportunity, I have taken advice from the Clerks and have tabled an amendment which will appear in my name on the new Marshalled List. It will propose a variation on the theme of Amendment No.109. I wish to speak briefly to my amendment.
I pick up the point mentioned by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, in col.1142 on 20th April. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Caithness has mentioned it again. What concerns me about Amendment No.109 is that, as drafted, it gives unfettered power to the executive of the day. I make that point most seriously in an apolitical sense. I take no political view of the issue at all and in order to display my credentials in that respect I remind those of your Lordships who were here some years ago that I voted against my party on a three-line Whip on the then community charge.
234
I am looking at the issue from the point of view of the operation of Parliament in the round. I suggest that it is extremely important that this House in whatever guise—and I agree with Amendment No.29—should provide a check on the executive. That is important to the democracy of this country. We should be able to say to the executive of whatever political persuasion—I repeat that I take no party political line on this—that it should think again.
The amendment which I earlier tabled—and having had the opportunity to speak tonight I intend to withdraw it before it has even reached the Marshalled List—would read 180 degrees away from Amendment: No.109. I am trying to suggest that, given a weighting system of votes in this House, at all times there should be a weight, albeit a small weight, against the government of the day. In that case, using unparliamentary language, if every single Member of this House were to gang up against the government of the day, the government would be obliged to think again. That is the purpose of the amendment which I have put down. I repeat that I intend to withdraw it because I have had the opportunity tonight to discuss it. I urge your Lordships to think seriously about the ability of this House to be a check on the executive.
Lord Desai: I rise to speak briefly to the amendment. The amendment moved, or not moved, by my noble friend will do nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, wants to do. It will not keep the executive in check because the problem is that this second Chamber has never been taken seriously because of the presence of the hereditary peerage. Therefore, we have a de facto unicameral legislature.
The reform is in two stages. The first is to remove that element which subjects us to attack from down the corridor whenever we do anything constructive which the government of any colour do not like. They say, "You unelected hereditary Peers, go a way!' As the noble Lord probably knows, I do not want to he here either, but this is not the occasion to discuss the abolition of life Peers, too. However, the point is that so long as hereditary Peers are retained, in whatever guise—they are the nicest of people and I like them very much and shall love them ever after—they are detracting from the legitimacy of this House. If your Lordships wish to challenge the executive, do not vote for this amendment. No weighting system is good enough. What is needed is the removal of the hereditary peerage and then we can discuss numbers.
Lord Marlesford: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he explain what he means by the House of Lords never being taken seriously? Who has never taken the House of Lords seriously and since when?
Lord Desai: The House of Commons and the country. I can give many examples of when this House has taken a sensible position on a Bill and tried to amend it and that has been rejected. That is the argument put forward by Labour and Conservative governments. I recall Michael Howard as Home Secretary wanting to set up borstals for 13 year-old

235
boys. The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, was against that. When the Bill was returned to this House, the noble Lord rose and said, "My Lords, we are right, but I am not going to press my amendment because we lack legitimacy ". Because we lack legitimacy we have a de facto unicameral legislature. I should like to have an effective second Chamber, but we shall not do so while the hereditary peerage is here.
Lord Marlesford: Again, before the noble Lord sits down, I know exactly what he wants but that is another matter. Of course there are occasions when the other place is greatly irritated by amendments made in this House, but over recent years thousands of amendments have been accepted by it. They would not have been made to improve the legislation without this House. Therefore, how can the noble Lord say that this House is not taken seriously? Surely, legislation is a serious matter.
Lord Desai: When it comes to the crunch, we do not matter.
Lord Goodhart: Why are we debating this at all? We are debating an amendment which has not been moved, when Amendment No.15 in a later group, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, raises exactly the same sort of—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My understanding is that the amendment has been moved.
Lord Goodhart: My understanding is that the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St Budeaux, said that he was not moving it. It was moved not by the person in whose name it stood, but by members of the Conservative Party.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I read out the relevant extract from the Companion:
"Amendments may be removed from the list of amendments at any time, at the wish of the proposer and with the agreement of any Lords who may have added their names to his. An amendment which has been tabled need not be moved. But where none of the Lords who are named as supporters of an amendment moves it, any other Lord may do so. "
That is what happened in this case.
Lord Goodhart: I am not suggesting that the amendment was moved out of order. What I am suggesting is that it is absurd when Amendment No.15, in the next group of amendments, raises precisely the same issue with the exception of Amendment No.109, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St Budeaux, which proposes that all Peers are equal but some Peers are more equal than others.
Lord Trefgarne: I too have been listening to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and would like to pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. I do not think that the House of Lords is held in the disrepute
236
that the noble Lord suggests. As my noble friend said, we have created a very good place for ourselves in the constitutional system over the years. I am sorry that the noble Lord does not think that. If he has such a low regard for the House of Lords, why did he bother to accept his peerage in the first place?
Lord Desai: Partly to get rid of the noble Lord. but partly for the following reason. Many people have accepted that the executive in this country is very powerful, and any party with a majority in another place can get through any legislation it wants. In the past 50 years only twice has the Parliament Act had to be invoked. So, by and large, the House of Commons can do what it likes, regardless of what we do. I rest my case.
I am not saying that we are disreputable. We are liked, but we are ineffective. I want us to be effective. I want us to defy the executive, and we shall not do so while the hereditary peerage is in the House of Lords.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord is condemned by his own words. The Parliament Act has been used twice, as he said, or perhaps three times since the war, and that is because it has not been thought necessary, because the will of the House of Lords has generally prevailed. Therefore, the noble Lord is not correct. I am still wondering why he bothered to come here.
Lord Desai: To be able to help my party get rid of the hereditary peerage.
Viscount Cross: If I am in order, I should like to speak to Amendment No.29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. It is very good amendment. It has great merit, and if at a later stage the noble Lord should seek the opinion of the Committee I shall certainly support him.
In this country great institutions have evolved over the centuries by degrees, and this is a very good way to proceed. At the end of it, we should have a much smaller House of Lords. The heirs of hereditary Peers could become life Peers should they become distinguished and if they would like to accept such a peerage. This simple and practical solution would get over the difficulty as to who should remain as hereditary Peers and who should leave. I support the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about the amendment because when I spoke at the end of the last day in Committee to a very large group I spoke only to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Selsdon as I had hoped that we might carry on the debate until today on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St Budeaux. I shall not say a great deal about it, but I could perhaps describe it as the rather more gentle approach to the question of reforming the House of Lords and more consistent with the way in which the British constitution tends to evolve rather than through revolutionary phases.

237
The noble Lord's proposals are certainly worthy of consideration. Both the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, think there may be some merit in part of the amendment. It is a view fairly widely shared that there may be a better way of dealing with the Government's problem—or problems, because they have two problems. The one they trumpet is that of the hereditary peerage, but the true problem is the numbers one, because if the Labour Party had managed to hold on to many of the people who were made hereditary Peers over the last 50 years from the Labour Benches, or their successors, and it had a majority in the House of Lords, I am not sure that we would be having this discussion. Every time I hear a speech or read a book, heavy into the book is the numbers game. The Government are quite distressed about the numbers game.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall. has made an interesting suggestion. I was amazed that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, dismissed so readily what he described as the block vote. I thought that that was loved dearly by the Labour Party. The noble and learned Lord told me that it has gone to one-man, one-vote. That certainly was not the position in Wales in the attempt to make sure that Mr. Alun Michael was elected. One-man, one-vote was set aside for the purposes of that election. The block vote is known to the Labour Party and it understands it quite well. I am not greatly in favour of the block vote in any shape or form and I am not greatly in favour of that part of the noble Lord's amendment.
However, my noble friend Lord Caithness made a valid point when he suggested that it would be better if the noble Lord's amendment provided that those hereditary Peers who never or hardly ever attend should lose the right to do so and that those hereditary Peers who attend reasonably frequently or very frequently and take part in our proceedings should be phased out by the proposed method. If he did that, the noble Lord would go some way to answer some of the criticisms made.
The problem with weighting the voting system is that if the weighting represents the other place, that will mean inevitably that the Government have an overall majority, which will include the Cross-Benchers. In that case, the House will become a mere reflection of the majority in the House of Commons.
The suggestion is that there is to be a revising Chamber with its powers constrained by the Parliament Act. I have no problem with that, but believe that that will change once the hereditary Peers leave. In that event, it is fairly pointless merely to have a little echo of the House of Commons where the Whips can whip in a majority. I believe that there is general agreement on all sides of the Committee about that. One of the merits here is that people can act rather more independently of the Whips. I certainly bear the scars—although they are diminishing with the passage of time—on my back from occasions when I was beaten. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that the government then backed down in relation to the matter on which they were defeated. Therefore, the question of the Parliament Act did not arise.
238
I am sure all noble Lords were greatly disappointed to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, would he happy to leave the House. We should be most unhappy if that were to happen.
Lord Desai: I assure the Committee that when I leave this House, I want to take the noble Lord with me.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is all very well for the noble Lord who has all sorts of professorial things to do, but what should I find to do if I were not able to tease the Government and fulfil what I believe to be the responsibility of your Lordships' House?
One of the major defects in the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, is the weighting of the voting. I understand that he included that to get round the problem of his party's obsession with the numbers game. But some of the suggestions that my noble friend Lord Caithness and I have made about removing the "nevers and hardly-evers" would go a long way to help in that regard.
I sympathise with the Government's point about numbers although I believe that they rather over-estimate the problem. As I said, I had a number of defeats inflicted on me. That does not suggest to me that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, the then Government Chief Whip, was able to whistle in huge armies of people to support the government. Occasionally we thought it better not to whip in too many Peers in case they were not persuaded by my argument. That is one problem with your Lordships' House. Your Lordships' House feels obliged to be persuaded by the argument. That is a totally alien idea to the House of Commons where the last thing that anybody is persuaded by is the argument. The Whips rule in the House of Commons; the argument does not matter. There is a major difference.
Therefore, although I believe that it is an ingenious weighting system, it is fundamentally wrong in its objective, which is to make this House a mere reflection of the other place. I certainly believe that the noble Lord's more gentle approach to the hereditary peerage would be in keeping with what we are told continually is the more gentle approach of this Government.
The Earl of Kinnoull: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendment No.15, to appease the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Amendment No.15 comes in the group after next. It may be sensible to wait until we reach that group.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I was not consulted about the grouping of Amendment No.15, but I am happy to comply with that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As we have had this debate once before, perhaps I may reply to only the specific points that are new in relation to this debate. First, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is absolutely right;

239
there was a contradiction in what I said; namely, that what the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said was wrong and flawed in every respect. He is right to point out that I entirely agreed with him when the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said that the time had come for the end of the hereditary Peers and that was the settled view both of the country and this House. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Randall, in relation to that.
Secondly, the noble Earl asked whether restricting the number of hereditary Peers who survived to those who regularly attended—that is slightly truncating his argument—would make it more palatable to the Government. The answer to that is no. The Government's position is that they believe the time has come for hereditary Peers to be removed from the legislative Chamber. They have indicated that they would support the Weatherill amendment if moved, but that involves removing 659 of the 750 hereditary Peers. That is their position.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said that he would like a chamber where one party did not have an absolute majority. This Government have said that in the transitional House they seek broad parity with the Conservative Party in relation to numbers. That would mean that they would not have an overall majority in this House. Therefore, it would appear that the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, supports the proposals of this Government in relation to the transitional House.
I have great sympathy for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I do not suggest for one moment that what happened was not in order, but it is rather difficult to follow, for a new boy: one is speaking to an amendment that has already been spoken to once before, the same issue will arise in the group after next, and one noble Lord speaks to an amendment that he has not yet put down on the Marshalled List and of which we do not know the details. I do not, for one moment, suggest that any of that was out of order.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cross, gave an excellent speech. However, I do not believe there was anything in it to which I have not replied. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in the persuasive way for which he is so famous, skilfully seeks to give some support to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, without pointing out that his "rather slower" approach involves 15 years before 50 per cent of the hereditary Peers will have gone and 60 years before they will all have gone. That would be a very slow approach indeed.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: Because of the lateness of the evening, I shall be brief. First, perhaps I may respond to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, as regards the way the voting system would work. I had decided to leave this until Report stage because it is almost impossible to talk about a formula and statistics in the House. I shall, however, prepare a note and put it in the Library for Members to read if they so wish.
The aim of the amendment is not to reduce the number of hereditary Peers—the fact that they are hereditary Peers is beside the point—but to reduce the
240
number of Peers attending this House arbitrarily and on such a scale that I cannot accept it as a good thing to do. We do not know the quality of the people who will be going; what experience they have had, whether they are able to attend regularly, and so forth. For us to ignore that cannot, in principle, be right. For the sake of the House, let us take more of a measured approach. This would all have to be done in the context of the Government's manifesto. I am doing this because, as the Prime Minister knows, I am a keen supporter of him and my party on this matter.
Perhaps I may briefly talk about the weighting system in practical terms. This system ensures that those Members who are not members of the Government have their vote in the usual way, but those who would be supporters of the Government would have a vote times the weighting factor. This is necessary because if the number of hereditary Peers is to be reduced, if they are to be replaced or if they are not to be replaced by their heirs on their death, there is a system of rapid decline. As the Minister pointed out, it has an asintotic effect at the end. That is the mathematics. It declines very rapidly. I apologise for using mathematical terms, but it is incredibly simple. That is why I said it would be necessary for everybody to have a note to explain how it works. What, in fact, would happen is a rapid decline.
That is how we would vote. When we go through the Division Lobby, the Clerks would put their ticks on the paper in the usual way, but when they come to do the aggregate, they would have a look-up table which would say, "Instead of reading 323, please read 296". The Whips would come in in the usual way and nobody would really know the difference.
Lord Naseby: On a point of order—
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: I would really prefer not to give way.
Lord Naseby: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have a point of order. What happens on a cross-vote when some of the weighted voters decide to vote in the Content Lobby and some in the Not-Content Lobby? I hope the paper that is to be distributed will explain that in some detail.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: The vote still stands, of course. When Peers vote against the Government, the vote would be carried across.
Perhaps I can comment on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, on the question of the unfettered power of the Government. That point was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. In looking at the weighted voting system I tried to balance the points made by my noble friend Lord Richard, who is not in his seat, who talks convincingly about the democratic legitimacy of the Chamber. I tried to reflect the weighted voting system in this Chamber on the number of seats held by the government in another place. But of course one could change that for a system based on a greater

241
independence of the House. I am open-minded on this. I chose the one that gives democratic legitimacy because more people raised that with me. One can change this around and I would be happy to change it at Report stage if that was felt to be desirable.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Cross, for his comments. I appreciate his courtesy in what he said. I wish to make one final point on the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in relation to bad attenders. Again, that is a convincing argument. But I tried to obtain simplicity. And that simplicity arose—I do not intend to spend time on this—by my own personal analysis when I sat down one weekend and put down what I felt should be the objectives on which reform should be based. Then I put down on a piece of paper what should be the principles. Then I came up with my solution, which I feel is objective. I believe it is in the interests of the House that I arrived at that.
I say in a kindly way—one finds this in business—that oftentimes people sit down and design a product and then say, "Let us see how we can use this". That is the thinking of the 1950s. Modern thinking is that one sits down, decides what one's objectives are and comes up with the right solution. In doing that, one can obtain consensus and a decision based on the interests of this Chamber. I say to the Committee that will do what I believe to be right for this Chamber as well as being loyal to Tony Blair, the Prime Minister.
I do not want to spend more time on this. I should like to try to get everybody home and to bed early tonight.
Lord Northbrook: The noble Lord kindly explained to me around a week ago over dinner how his ingenious system works. As a point of order, can he say how the Cross-Benches weighting works? The whole idea of the weighted average system, which I hope my noble friend Lord Ferrers has had time to digest over the past week, is a good idea. It is simple; it is ingenious in its simplicity and achieves what the Government require in a just and equitable manner, albeit over a slightly longer period than perhaps they wished.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: I have regarded every body who is not on the government side—the Cross-Benchers, the Liberals and the Conservatives—as being equal; whether or not one is hereditary, all are equal. The system that I have devised would multiply the votes on this side of the Chamber by the weighting factor.
In practice, the principle of this weighting system would be placed before the Procedure Committee. Indeed, the Clerk of the Parliaments would actually draw up the formula and put it before the Procedure Committee. It would then, in turn, be endorsed by the House. So the principle of the system would be laid down by this Chamber. Again, that is placing the
242
responsibility in this House rather than having it carried out by the executive. The more that we do in this House as parliamentarians, rather than the executive, the better.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he realises that anything fewer than 25 votes for each Member of the Liberal Democrat Benches would be wholly unacceptable to us.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for what he has said. Indeed, it has helped to clarify the thoughts that gave rise to the amendment. It has also proved how useful a Committee stage can be in this Chamber because, on Report, we could certainly never have had this debate in preparation for a further stage. I even hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, if he paid attention, has learnt something that he would not have learnt by the moving of any of the subsequent amendments that he wanted to discuss. I say that because none of them refers to a weighted voting system.
I shall read the noble and learned Lord's response with interest. I shall also read with interest the paper that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, is going to place in the Library of the House; indeed, all noble Lords would benefit from doing so. Again, without this debate, the noble Lord would not have been able to say that he was going to do so and have that fact recorded in the Official Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No.14A:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A)")
The noble Lord said: The time has come for close scrutiny of this Bill, most particularly its legalities. As I have said in earlier speeches, I have observed many alternative proposals for the reform of this House, some of which appear to most as convenient structural fixes. I am deeply concerned with the legalities of what this Bill purports to enact. I believe that it is defective in law.
A great deal of time and attention is being given to restructuring the House as a reform; but little, if any, is given to the far more substantive issue of a Bill removing hereditary rights. Does that difference of attention mean that we are not to be concerned with the legalities of the Bill? Alternatively, are we concerned only with how the House will be restructured?
In moving Amendment No.14A, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos.30A and 68A as grouped on the list. The purpose of Amendments Nos.14A and 30A is based on the existence of property and personal rights of hereditary Peers, created by Letters Patent under the Great Seal. These rights are to a seat, a place and a voice in the Parliaments and assemblies of the United Kingdom.
In addition to rights created by Letters Patent, our common and customary laws for centuries, well before legal memory, have recognised as valid and enforceable the rights and property acquired by usage. The law indicates that these rights are acquired by a defined group, without use of force, about a specific place and

243
openly for all to see. There are many substantive case-law precedents which affirm and recognise these rights, but which this Bill will remove.
Letters Patent may be abolished by statute. That is no different from a government abolishing all wills and deeds and covenants of property.
However, it is not parliamentary practice for common laws, particularly those concerning property and title, to be abolished by Parliament without first appointing a law commission to review them and Parliament considering its recommendations. The Government have not followed that practice.
Customary law is the foundation of parliamentary law. Custom is the sole basis in law for the process used to enact Bills into statutes. To abolish one customary law, especially concerning property, presents an undermining of and a challenge to all our laws based on and existing by custom. Such abolition challenges a fundamental principle of our English laws and does so without proper advice and consent.
All Peers have property rights in the Palace of Westminster. These rights of property are the same as those recognised in our courts, such as to walk across another man's field to attend church; to take water from a spring; to hold a horse race; to use another man's beach for drying fishing nets; or to hold a fair. Such rights are the basis and not the result of our constitutional laws. In my previous speeches on the reform of this House I proposed the convention of the constitution by which hereditary Peers would agree not to have their votes taken into account. This is the proposition in my Amendment No.68A. The great advantage of this amendment is that the Government would not need to introduce a Bill to abolish Letters Patent, nor rights existing in common law and custom. It also avoids having to pass a Bill to annul each Letters Patent for each hereditary peerage and the parliamentary time and expense of so doing.
The aim of Amendment No.68A is for the hereditary Peers to secure a statutory protection of their vote but that their votes are not taken into account in the passage of Bills and the rules of procedure in this House. At the same time the personal and property rights of hereditary Peers to attend, sit and speak would remain as established by common law and Letters Patent. A vote not counted is better than no vote at all. Even though by this amendment votes of hereditary Peers would not be counted, their views and opinions would still remain a valued and enduring indicator of opinion in Parliament. The revising role of the House is sustained by the quality of its best opinions. Hereditary Peers will remain a constant and abiding influence on governments and they will acquire perhaps even more profound influence when not associated with partisan views. Surely it is a mistake to believe that all power rests solely in a vote. Well formulated and delivered opinions and policies form the will of an electorate. As the pen is mightier than the sword, so a sound and independent opinion forms the vote.
I am glad to see that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is present. His amendment suggests a two-Writ system. However, that amendment would specifically omit any
244
voting by hereditary Peers. It would remove the right to vote completely. My amendment preserves the vote but not the right to have it taken into account. It provides for the greater democracy in Parliament desired and sought by the Government but without the need to abolish legal rights. It also takes into account the truth that the Government do not have a mandate from the electorate to rescind the property rights of hereditary Peers. They have a mandate to reform the House of Lords, but the Government did not declare how they would proceed. Their mandate cannot possibly be interpreted as an authority for them to abolish property rights, except perhaps by the most devious and tortuous twisting of the real significance and meaning of a political manifesto.
In my Second Reading speech the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor intervened before I sat down and asked me whether I challenged Parliament's power to rescind Letters Patent. I supported my reply in a letter to the noble and learned Lord where I answered no. However, I also said that the Government could not claim to have a mandate from the electorate to rescind property rights. This was never mentioned in the Labour Party's manifesto and therefore cannot have been supported by the electorate. My amendment would enact a protection and continuation of property rights without opposing the reform of this House; nor would it be adversarial to the Government's desire to achieve greater democracy in Parliament. I sincerely hope that the Government will see the pragmatism of my amendments.
Hereditary Peers would never have attracted such political focus if their votes were not counted in making the laws in Parliament. The amendment, if enacted, will relieve the problem of the inherited political power of an embedded Conservative majority.
This group of amendments also deals with matters concerning property rights created by Letters Patent and with the consequential legal issues invoked by the Statute of Westminster and the European Convention on Human Rights. These two matters will be examined in greater detail in relation to my Amendments Nos.111A and 120A at a later stage. But I touch on the Westminster Statute and European human rights issues today because my Amendment No.68A moderates the need to invoke the Westminster Statute and avoids human rights challenges in the courts.
The need to obtain the consent to this Bill from all the Commonwealth Parliaments is mandated in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster 1931. That is because, by removing the rights of hereditary Peers created by the sovereign's Letters Patent, the Bill directly diminishes the sovereign's own hereditary rights. By its very purpose, the Bill more than touches on the Queen's titles. It removes the hereditary right of our sovereign to create hereditary Peers who have the right to be Members of this House. That is the very substance of the sovereign's hereditary right. It is the Queen's right, inherent with her titles, to create hereditary Peers with the right to be Members of this House. By this Bill, the Queen and her successors will

245
no longer be able to create hereditary Peers with a right to membership of this House. That is the basic purpose and effect of the Bill. As such, it directly invokes the Statute of Westminster since it changes the sovereign's rights and titles. I refer noble Lords to the preamble to the statute for serious consideration. If your Lordships and the Government will consent to it, my amendment avoids those profound dilemmas.
The amendment also avoids the prospect of an application to the European Court of Human Rights to decide whether the removal of an embedded Conservative majority in this Parliament is lawful. In the debate on the White Paper, I referred noble Lords to the successful Turkish case in the European Court. In my speech at Second Reading I stated that the Government are motivated by a political objective; namely, to remove a political group and thus change our constitution in so doing. That cannot be accepted as a lawful motive to achieve constitutional or democratic reform of our parliamentary government.
The Turkish case decided that it is not lawful under European human rights laws to exclude a group from political participation simply because it is politically regarded as undermining the structures of the state. The fact that this Government pursue greater democracy does not morally or lawfully entitle them to violate human rights laws. Thus my amendments provide a practical compromise and a legal alternative to achieving the greater democracy that the Government seek.
The Turkish decision protects the rights of all individuals, regardless of their political affiliations. Therefore I have to reject the view expressed by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House in the Explanatory Notes on the Bill that its provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. They are not. These amendments avoid those traps and snares that the Government have set for themselves and for the Opposition, and which lie set and ready in the provisions of the Statute of Westminster and the European Human Rights Convention and laws. The Government should carefully consider the substantial features of my amendments. I believe that they provide far stronger credentials to achieve greater democracy in Parliament than does this Bill.
Finally, will the Minister give the Committee an assurance that the Government, both prior to and during the passage of the Bill in Parliament thus far, have consulted with the Queen concerning the effect of the Bill in abolishing Her Majesty's hereditary rights and titles? If so, will the Minister also assure the Committee that the Government have advised the Queen, as Head of the Commonwealth, about the provisions of the Statute of Westminster 1931? Furthermore, have they advised Her Majesty that the Bill invokes the statute and thus its mandatory requirement to obtain the approval of the Commonwealth parliaments? I am willing to accept answers in writing to those questions if the Minister is unable to respond tonight. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for explaining the purpose of his amendments. As I understood him, he said that his Amendment No.30A gave personal and property rights to enter, sit and speak in the House of Lords as granted by Letters Patent. Letters Patent create a peerage and give the right to receive a Writ of Summons to attend Parliament. It is the Writ of Summons that must be presented, as was debated earlier today, before a Peer takes the Oath of Allegiance, either on introduction or at the beginning of any new parliament.
As was said earlier, Clause 4(2) makes clear that the right to receive a Writ will be abolished by the Bill—except perhaps for the various Peers who may be allowed to stay for a temporary period if the Weatherill amendment is accepted. Thus if any hereditary Peer arrives at the start of a new Parliament, claiming his rights under common law or based on the Letters Patent, and relying on his Patent as a talisman, he will not be able to sit unless he has taken the Oath—and he cannot take the Oath if he has no Writ of Summons. The amendment is therefore flawed in that way.
The amendment is also flawed because it does riot include all hereditary Peers. It relates only to peerages created under Letters Patent. This would exclude the 35 or so hereditary Peers who hold baronies created by a Writ of Summons, of which I am one. Baronies by Writ are the oldest baronies of all and are not dependent on Letters Patent, certainly not the 13 extant baronies dating from before 1387 when the first Patent was issued exceptionally by Richard II to John Beauchamp, who became Lord Kidderminster. Baronies by Writ are baronies of England and differ from the later baronies of Great Britain and the United Kingdom created by Letters Patent in that they allow descent to heirs general rather than to heirs male, thus allowing women to succeed, I am very glad to say, and, since 1963. to sit. I have no Letters Patent—your Lordships may think that it would not be of very great importance if I was not allowed to sit—but I have asked a number of other holders of Baronies by Writ whether they possess Letters Patent. Everyone said that they did not. and one or two said that they had never heard of them.
Amendment No.30A is an attempt to circumvent the provisions of the Bill. It is basically unsound and based on a false premise. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it. If he does not, I hope that the Committee will reject it.
Viscount Cranborne: I congratulate my noble friend Lord Norrie on provoking a magnificent response from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, which will have come as no surprise to those who have heard his authoritative pronouncements in the Procedure Committee. It was extremely courageous of my noble friend to propose his amendments in front of the noble Lord. knowing, as I am sure he did, that he would elicit such an authoritative reply.
For reasons which I will not explain at any length, I would hesitate to rebut my noble friend's contention. I certainly would not wish to tangle with the noble Lord,

247
Lord Strabolgi, on the matter of Peerages by Writ as opposed to Peerages by Letters Patent. Certainly, as the possessor of a relatively modern peerage compared to that of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I would not regard myself as an authority on the matter. What I should like to do is to refer to Amendment No.30A which was proposed by my noble friend and, with the greatest of respect to him, suggest to the Committee that, perhaps for non-technical reasons, my noble friend might care to withdraw that amendment. I suggest that not for technical reasons, but for purely practical ones.
If I understood my noble friend correctly, he dismissed somewhat airily the perils of two classes of Member of any House of Parliament. I wonder whether I may bring back my noble friend to that part of his argument. I have been quite attracted by some of the arguments that I have heard in your Lordships' House and elsewhere about the merits of Members of a reformed upper Chamber being drawn from different categories of people. Indeed, people from different sources should perhaps be suggested as Members of the reformed upper Chamber. But I would regard that as being very different from Members of any Chamber of Parliament, let alone the upper Chamber of this Parliament, enjoying different rights and privileges once here.
All of us have been astonished and riveted by the speeches of the hereditary Peers. We have never been bored and we have never been unimpressed in any way. We have hung, metaphorically, like Miss Prism from the lips of every noble Lord who has spoken. But I wonder whether that enthusiasm and respect would long survive the knowledge that a noble Lord who sat here by hereditary right or by Writ of Summons—in spite of the answer of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a little earlier; perhaps we ought to be more precise—had detained us, however learnedly and entertainingly, when we knew, in the final analysis, that that noble Lord could not affect the final decision of the House because he did not enjoy the privilege of a vote.
As a former business manager in the House, I suspect that the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House, or perhaps their opposition opposite numbers, would increasingly find themselves the subject of complaints about some Peers keeping the House up purely because they were exercising rights which were different from the rights of other noble Lords. We would find two classes of Member who inevitably would be treated as such.
It has been one of the glories of your Lordships' House so far that all noble Lords who are Members of the present House, whether life Peers or hereditary Peers, are treated alike. There have sometimes been jibes from the Government Front Bench during the course of the present Parliament when votes have gone against the Government and they have endeavoured to say that that was entirely the fault of the presence of hereditary Peers. They are entitled to point that out. But I think that I am right in saying that when the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and her myrmidon, the Government Chief Whip, have been moved to make such remarks, it has in no way been in the spirit that
248
under present circumstances any Member of your Lordships' House does not have the right to exercise that vote. They merely wish to remove that right; but while we still have that right, they acknowledge that we have the right to exercise it.
I suspect that if noble Lords were allowed by hereditary right to sit in your Lordships' House, as my noble friend proposes, and they were to venture to keep your Lordships up, as I am doing even now at a late hour, very soon for practical reasons they would find themselves the object of second-class status or discrimination of one kind or another.
I ask my noble friend to consider whether it is wise in any chamber to have two classes of member. As soon as it happens not only does it engender the kind of irritation that I have endeavoured to describe, together with the example that I have given, but it will begin to encourage invidious comparisons between members. Inevitably, different Members in the House with different rights will find themselves subject to all kinds of different treatment. I regard that as deeply injurious to the present harmonious relations between people who sit in this House having arrived by different routes.
While it is sensible to listen with respect and admiration to my noble friend, I wonder whether his Amendment No.30A carries with it more practical dangers whatever be the technical rights and wrongs of the case. I believe that he was very courageous in advance to quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, on this matter.
Lord Carter: The noble Viscount referred to me as a myrmidon. I have looked up the word and see that it means either a hired ruffian or lowly servant. I just wonder which of the two the noble Viscount had in mind.
Viscount Cranborne: I would never regard the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip as a ruffian. He has certainly been hired, so perhaps that part of the description fits. Servant? Surely not. Perhaps I should find a better and more elegant word and I therefore withdraw the appellation.
The Earl of Northesk: I should like to address the question of personal and property rights raised by my noble friend Lord Norrie. Notwithstanding our first debate this afternoon on the issue of the Writ of Summons, I remain confused by the phase on the face of the Bill
"a member of the House of Lords".
Consequently, as a first port of call can the Minister assist the Committee by advising where the statutory precedent for its use is to be found. It is my understanding that it has never been used before in an Act of Parliament.
No one should have any reason to doubt that the Government are aware that the concept of a hereditary peerage is not defined in statute; rather, as we are all aware—and I hope that I do not trespass on the sensibilities of the noble and learned Lord the Lord

249
Chancellor as to its arcane nature—its definition is to be found in case law and precedent developed over time in line with the evolutionary character of our constitution.
Happily, consultations with the Library of this House on the point have elicited two key cases this century which have had the effect of restating the essential criteria to be considered in this context. First, there is the judgment in the claim of Viscountess Rhondda in 1922:
"A peerage is an inalienable incorporeal hereditament created by the act of the Sovereign which, if and when he creates it, carries with it certain attributes which attach to it not by any reason of any grant of those attributes by the Crown, but as essentially existing at common law by reason of the enablement created by the grant of the peerage".
Secondly, the 1994 edition of Halsbury's Laws of England, following upon the Norfolk Earldom case of 1907. states:
"'Peerage' may he defined as a dignity to which is attached the right to a summons by name to sit and vote in Parliament".
My further researches on this point add considerable weight to the principles contained in the two passages that I have cited. In a debate on the viscountcy of my noble friend Lord Oxfuird in 1977 the noble and learned Lord. Lord Keith of Kinkel, commented (albeit in a case involving a Scottish peerage) thus:
"First of all, I suggest that it is desirable to understand the nature of a Scottish peerage. It is a species of heritable property which descends to heirs according to the canons which, in the law of Scotland, are appropriate to the descent of any kind of heritable property, and of course your Lordship will apareciate that land is the most important kind of heritable property-. —[Official Report, 27/6/77; co1.900.]
Noble Lords will of course appreciate that land is the most important part of heritable property.
In the same debate, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton developed this theme:
"It seems to me that to deprive a small group of persons … of what is already a vested right, if they are able to prove it, without compensation and without very good reason, would be entirely wrong". —f Official Report, 27/6/77; col.910.]
It is also worth noting that the Redesdale Committee's Third Report on Dignity of a Peer of the Realm, dated 1822, observes that,
"a peerage being a hereditament created de novo it can have no existence but according to the terms of its creation and must cease to exist the moment there should be a failure of those to whom it may be given by the words of the patent".
I offer your Lordships one more quotation, from the Cowley v. Cowley case in 1901:
"the dignities of the peerage having been originally annexed to lands were considered as tenements or incorporeal hereditaments wherein a person might have a real estate; and although dignities are now become little more than personal honours and rights yet they are still classed under the head of real property".
I cite those precedents for the record merely to support the substance of my noble friend's contention that property rights attach to the existence of a hereditary peerage.
In the circumstances, I simply ask the Government whether they in turn accept this or whether, despite those precedents, they have some other perceptions about this matter.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My noble friend Lord Northesk quoted my own family peerage case, but what concerns me tonight is what is legal or illegal.
250
I am minded of the visit of Peter the Great of Russia to Westminster Hall in 1697. He was brought in by his guide and was shown this great building, which was defined as the greatest building in Europe. He saw people walking across the steps and asked who they were. His guide said, "Your Imperial Highness, they are lawyers". He said, "I have but two lawyers in my entire kingdom and I am minded to behead one of them the very day I return".
We have heard the manifesto of the Labour Party. Where stands the law in this matter? We have to debate for long hours in this Chamber. We are not taking the advice of our predecessors. I wonder whether I may remind noble Lords of my own peerage case—or rather, my late kinsman's peerage case—in which Lord Keith of Kinkel said:
"My Lords, the law on this problem is not an arcane one. It is entirely clear to those who are instructed and experienced in the law of Scotland about heritable property, and I suggest that it is a body of law which could not he repealed, as is suggested by the noble Lord"—
he was referring to Lord Molson—
"without upsetting the whole basis of Scots peerage law. It would be possible perhaps to introduce by Act of Parliament some form of prescription of peerages, a species of limitation, but that would he an exception to the basic principle of Scots law that hereditable rights never prescribe. There is this consideration, too, my Loris: that having in view that every peerage not extinct or attained is vested in someone, even though he does not at present receive a Writ to attend, to introduce this prescription would involve taking away vested rights, and I do not think that this is a principle which is readily accepted in any Act of Parliament, at least not without some compensation being provided for". —[Official Report, 2716177; col.902.]
What concerns me is that we speak of the law, and we are disinclined to refer to it. I am not a lawyer, but there are moments in this Chamber when we need guidance. I hope that the noble Lord on the Front Bench will give us firm and direct guidance in this matter.
Lord Trefgarne: My noble friend Lord Norrie raised a number of points. However, one point is perhaps more crucial than others. I hope that the Minister will address it. I refer to the concept of the property rights that attach to a peerage—indeed, the property rights attached to membership of this House which are being removed from the hereditary Peers. Is it the Government's view that there is no property right attached to membership of this House, and that therefore the Bill can be passed with equanimity?
A number of people have suggested to me that there are property rights attached to membership of this House. There are certainly property rights attached to a peerage generally. However, the peerage in its entirety is not being removed from hereditary Peers, but just the right to sit, vote and speak in this House. As noble Lords will recall, not only is the right to sit, vote and speak being removed, but also the so-called "club rights". Perhaps there is some benefit attached to those.
I hope that the Government have considered the matter and that the noble Lord will reply to it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: This Bill is nothing to do with the abolition of the hereditary peerage. It is perhaps

251
worth stating that. The noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, who spoke penultimately, said that we speak of law often and rarely refer to it. I think that I have listened to every speech on every occasion dealing with reform of this Chamber, and that has not been my listening experience.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for moving Amendment No.14A and speaking to Amendments Nos.30A and 68A so courteously and fully. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi pointed out certain defects in the amendments. He put the points crisply: that the amendments were basically unsound and based on a false premise. Apart from that, there are other defects. The noble Lord argues, and I take up the challenge put by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that hereditary Peers have personal and property rights to enter, sit and speak in this House, and that to remove their places in this House is a denial of those rights. I repeat: this is nothing to do with hereditary titles or dignities. It has to do with the right to sit in a legislature. The right to sit in the upper Chamber of the legislature is not a property right. I shall develop that argument in a moment. I am answering as plainly as I can the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.
At Second Reading—it seems a long time ago, but it is not so temporally—the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, said that the Letters Patent were a contract irrevocable even by an Act of Parliament. That is the absolutist, Bourbon view. I reject it. I do not think that it is sustainable politically, morally, socially or legally. I believe that the sovereignty of Parliament subsists and matters, and Parliament is sovereign. The world may change, but the contra-argument is that hereditary Peers are entitled, as a matter of right and as a matter of law, to their place in Parliament; that the hereditary Peers will in fact go on for ever. That is where we part company. It is said that any Act passed after the removal of the hereditary element would be invalid. That is plainly wrong for the reasons set out by the Lord Chancellor on earlier occasions. The terms of Letters Patent are not sacrosanct.
It is put to me that I ought to offer an example or two, so I shall. As your Lordships are fully aware, the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 provided for all privileges and rights to any dignity or title, whether in respect of a peerage or under Royal Warrant or Letters Patent, to cease and determine in respect of all Peers who supported the Germans during the First World War. So we are not rushing on heedlessly into establishing a new precedent.
It is well established law that Letters Patent are not sacrosanct. In the case of Viscountess Rhondda, to pronounce the name correctly, the Committee for Privileges does not accept the proposition that an Act of Parliament could not vary Letters Patent. We have the further example, which has been referred to on an occasion or two tonight, of Section 6 of the Peerage Act 1963 which overrode the terms of Letters Patent to give the right to sit in this House to Peeresses.
It is asserted, and I dispute it, that there is a personal property right to sit in this House. The noble Lord put his argument on two bases, and I believe that I
252
summarise it fairly and briefly. One was the Statue of Westminster and the other was the European Convention on Human Rights. A number of us here, not least my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer sitting behind me and marginally to my left, introduced that with a good deal of pleasure. I am glad that our efforts have proved not to be entirely in vain, since it is designed for all citizens of this country to have their rights repatriated, but it will not help the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. The right to sit in this House is not a possession. It is not a piece of property like a house, a piece of land, a mountain bicycle or a video machine.
I listened to the noble Lord's argument with care and he gave as an example the Turkish litigation. That is nothing to this point because we are not excluding a group from participation in the legislative process. Quite the opposite; in this Bill will be seen the taking away of the long historic injustice that hereditary Peers are not able to vote in parliamentary elections. We are putting that right by giving those who have been deprived politically and legally their full entitlement to participate.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sorry that your Lordships are treating that point with levity, because it is extremely important that we are now visiting the underprivileged with their full rights. If they were not in prison—
Viscount Cranborne: Perhaps the Minister—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may finish my sentence because it is too good a point to miss. At least if they were not in prison they were disenfranchised and I still visited them.
Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he slightly exaggerate the generosity of the Government in this respect? After all, perhaps one of the reasons why Peers have been unable to vote in parliamentary elections is that they have a right to sit in one of the Houses of Parliament. If the Government intend to take away from certain existing Members of your Lordships' House their right to sit here, perhaps it is only equitable that they should be given the opportunity to vote in parliamentary elections for another place. I know that the noble Lord was displaying his usual rapier-like wit at our expense, but, nonetheless, perhaps he will admit that it was not merely the righting of a long-lost wrong; it was the taking away of one privilege and the granting of another in exchange.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sorry that with my lack of rapier-like wit I was unable to make my point plain. My point is that it is a good idea to treat everyone who lives in this country equally. That is the fundamental point of the Bill and the fundamental point of the Human Rights Act, now triumphantly on the

253
statute book. Part of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, deals with what I think I could call a conceptual vote, which is certainly novel to me. What he proposed, if I studied his amendment correctly, is that hereditary Peers should be entitled to vote, but that their vote should not be counted.
It would be wrong of me to say that that is a novel constitutional device in the whole history of the world, but it certainly strikes me as bizarre. If I had proposed it, the first to have objected would have been the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, saying that it would be quite wrong that those who voted would have a vote that should be disregarded. The noble Viscount made that point. I certainly would object to that. It would be deeply dismissive of those who had a vote but were not able to have it counted.
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, also raised a question which demonstrated a pleasant proposition to me; namely. that at least two Members of the Committee were awake. One was the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the other was me. As soon as the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, mentioned this question we interrogated each other. the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, wondering idly whether I would fall into the trap and. I praying, nobly or ignobly, that I would not. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, asked two questions: first, what was Her Majesty's view and, secondly, had we taken Her Majesty's view? As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, well knows, that would be a wholly illegitimate set of questions for me to reply to, and accordingly I do not, on well-known constitutional bases.
The question of the Statute of Westminster has nothing to do with this at all. We are not interfering with the powers of the sovereign in the slightest way. Therefore, the extant dominions have no proper interest in these matters.
I know that a number of Members of the Committee are concerned about what may or may not happen. I have read with great care the different amendments—they are slightly different in shade and effect—that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has put forward. There is no exit that will he satisfactory, because we have come to our distinct conclusions. I have said on a number of occasions, because I mean it, that I recognise that other Members of the Committee have deeply held views. There will be no safeguard, beyond the possibility of the Weatherill amendment—and I say this with great care, without any aggression, malice or ill-thought—because we believe that the continuation of the hereditary principle, the capricious donation of birth, in the House of Lords, is no longer sustainable. That is the purpose behind our legislation. There is nothing by way of device or alternative, cosmetic amendment that will be acceptable to us.
Lord Northbrook: The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, mentioned the claim of Lady Rhondda. The speech of Viscount Birkenhead, the then Lord Chancellor is interesting. He said:
"What, then, becomes of the suggestion that the right to sit is not a right granted by Letters Patent? Literally it is true. The Letters Patent require the supplement of a writ. But they give a right to demand that writ and impose an obligation to receive it and to act upon it ".
254
I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on this speech.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Viscount Birkenhead, sitting as Lord Chancellor, held that there was no need to interpret the Act, because there was no sustainable proposition that no Act could overturn the terms of Letters Patent. Letters Patent, I submit, because I believe this to be legally correct, cannot be above the general law of the land. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, placed a good deal of emphasis on common law, on historical tradition. The fact is that no aspect of common law is capable of being sustained if Parliament decides the contrary by way of statute.
The Earl of Northesk: I too apologise to the Minister for my sub-standard pronunciation. I am but a humble Scots boy.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do my best to pronounce English words and sometimes I succeed.
Lord Norrie: I am delighted that my amendments have caused such massive reaction from noble Lords on the Benches opposite and I am happy too to see the smiles on their faces at this late hour. I thank the Minister for his extremely courteous and informative reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): Before I call Amendment No.15, I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No.15 is accepted, I shall not be able to call Amendment No.16.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull moved Amendment No.15:
Page 1, line 5, after ("No-one") insert ("who after the day on which this Act is passed succeeds to a hereditary peerage")
The noble Earl said: I shall be very brief. Because of something of a mix-up in the Committee immediately after the dinner break, my noble friend Lord Caithness moved extremely ably and spoke to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall; that is, Amendments Nos.14, 29 and 109. At that time, it was my intention to speak to this amendment but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that it had been agreed that Amendments Nos.15 and 21 should be taken together.
The purpose of the amendment is to avoid disruption to the working of the House as it moves into its interim period. That is the message. I do not intend to argue the point other than to refer to the excellent and persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, last week on the whole subject. I suggest that on that occasion he received a dusty answer from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who said that the amendment would undermine the very foundation of the Government's Bill.
But how will the foundation of the Bill fare in the light of the Weatherill amendment? Is there a case for underpinning? I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We have debated this matter fully already. The amendment seeks to keep the

255
750 hereditary Peers who are already here to make up the alleged deficiencies of what will be a House with 500 life Peers. Even with the life Peers alone, this will be the largest second Chamber in the world. We have gone over those points time and time again and I shall not repeat them. The effect of the noble Earl's proposal is that the hereditary Peers would not be removed for 60 years and that 50 per cent would still he there after 15 years. That is in order to supplement what will still be the largest second Chamber in the world.
The Earl of Kinnoull: We heard the argument in relation to the 60 years last Tuesday when it was pointed out that we shall be in an interim period. That could not possibly last for 60 years.
Will the noble and learned Lord reply to my specific question about why this amendment would cause such massive disruption to the Government's Bill compared with the Weatherill amendment, which will also cause disruption?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Earl said that it was in order to keep the House going. I am pointing out that with 500 life Peers, I believe the House will adequately survive.
The Earl of Kinnoull: The noble and learned Lord said last week that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, would undermine the very foundation of the Government's Bill. I suggest that the Weatherill amendment does that too. What is the difference?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The difference between the Weatherill amendment and this amendment is that 750 hereditary Peers survive under the "Randall amendment", if I may so call it, whereas 659 of those 750 go under the Weatherill amendment. That is the difference.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I thank the Minister for that mathematical reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No.16.
Page 1, line 5. leave out ("shall be") and insert ("who is")
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No.16 I should like to speak also to Amendment No.22. The effect of that amendment is that no one who is a Member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage,
"shall be entitled to vote in that House or in any committee of that House".
I suggest that that should satisfy all members of the Front Bench opposite. The great complaint is that the Conservative Party buses in great numbers of Members to vote down Labour governments of the day. That is totally untrue, but that is the accusation. However, if we cannot vote, that is perfectly all right and the Government have nothing to worry about. They will carry all their votes and a great time will be had by all.
I am a little windy about putting this suggestion to the Committee because I am aware that the Front Bench opposite is wary of our amendments. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House implied that she was fed up with having to repeat the same answers time and again. The fact is that if the Government cause upheaval to the whole of one House of Parliament they cannot expect it to go unnoticed. It is perfectly right that this Chamber should ask the Government what they are doing, why they are doing it and should penetrate their reasons. That is why I have no hesitation in putting forward the amendment.
All the members of the Front Bench—I say this with great courtesy, I believe—have done a tremendous job of saying nothing. They have put their heads down, rather like a Hereford bull, charged ahead and said, "Get rid of hereditary Peers; that is all we care about. We are not going to move to the left or to the right. We will not listen to any kind of argument. All we want to do is to get rid of the hereditary Peers."
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said. I believe at Second Reading:
"It is my belief that the most thoughtful among the hereditary Peers"—
I am not one of those—
"of all political persuasions, know that the time has come to say, `Thank you and goodbye'".
I do not believe that the time has come to say thank you and goodbye. I think the time has come to say. "Thank you and please continue. " I apologise to the noble Baroness. Those remarks were made during the House of Lords reform debate of 14th October, not at Second Reading. The noble Baroness has perhaps changed her view since then. I have just refreshed my memory of what she said in that debate. She stated:
"Perhaps I may emphasise again that the purpose of this debate is to take stock and to listen to your Lordships". —[0fficial Report, 14/10/98; cols.921–2.]
I have to say that when I read that, I practically fell off my chair. I do not believe that the noble Baroness has listened very much. She has listened as if to a noise like dripping water in the background that she has to push to one side as being a great bore. The Government are making a considerable change. It is right that we should ask the Government why they are making it and test them as to whether they believe it is the right thing to do.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—
Noble Lords: No.
Earl Ferrers: What did I say? I thought I said "the Lord Advocate".
Noble Lords: He is not the Lord Advocate.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I apologise. I was trying to be polite. the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, stated that there were 570 life Peers and that that should be enough to look after the interests of everyone. Frankly, I believe that an appalling amount of humbug goes on about this.

257
There are many life Peers on the side of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, as well as on our side, who play no part at all. Many hereditary Peers play no part at al]. That does not matter. Those who play a part are told by the noble Baroness that the time has come to say goodbye to them; those who do not play a part are told that they are backwoodsmen and do not care what is going on. So hereditary Peers cannot win.
I could not help but be slightly amazed at the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I warned him that I would refer to it. He said,
"we still have a second Chamber with a potential size of nearly 1.300 Members and with a current maximum attendance of about 1, 150…The poor Americans and Canadians bumble along with a little over 100 in their senates. The Germans do even better with only about 70. The French seriously overdose"—
an unfortunate expression—
"with over 300 in their Senate. Even when the hereditary Peers have been removed from this House, there will be over 500 life Peers and Bishops". —[official Report, 30/3/99; col.360.]
So the argument went, "Get rid of all the hereditary Peers and we will be perfectly all right because we will still have 500 of them".
The noble Lord went on to say:
"Around 50 per cent of the adult population are women and 7 per cent, ire from ethnic minorities",
and the Chamber does not reflect that. He then said at col.361:
"Basically, we are a club for older white males and are seen as such by many people outside this Chamber".
I must say I wondered why the noble Lord bothered to become a Member merely to contribute to the problem. He contributes by adding to the "white males"; he contributes by adding to the ethnicity problem; and he contributes by adding to the gender problem. Anyhow, he has had the advantage of being here for six months and he gave us the benefit of his view which is that, after 600 years, your Lordships should be asked to go away.
The purpose of my speech is to say to the Committee that this is a very helpful amendment. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is to respond to this amendment. I want to tell him that it is an extremely helpful amendment. He will get all that he wants. Hereditary Peers will not be able to vote and therefore they will not capsize the voting arrangements. But they will he able to contribute.
What is the harm in that? Members of this Chamber and many other people have referred to the expertise in your Lordships' House. I am sure noble Lords opposite think that all the expertise comes from life Peers. I am sure that a lot comes from life Peers, but quite a lot comes from hereditary Peers. If it is expertise that is wanted, let us hear about it. Let us bring all the knowledge that is available, from whatever source, into your Lordships' Chamber. When it comes to the crunch point and having a vote, hereditary Peers need not vote, and, indeed, would not be able to vote.
But what would happen in matters of heritage, art and agriculture if all the hereditary Peers were to go? I introduced a debate on agriculture just over one year ago in which only two speakers were from the party
258
opposite. The majority of people who know about agriculture tend to be on this side of the Chamber, I leave it to Members of the Committee to decide why. I do not know who knows about agriculture in another place, but not many. Although many Members represent agricultural constituencies, they are mostly solicitors. teachers—or something funny like that—or sociologists: they are not agriculturists.
Agriculture is a great part of our heritage. Around 80 per cent of the countryside is covered by land, hut that: will not be reflected in another place or in this House if all the hereditary Peers go. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, knows a lot about all facets of the law, as does his noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn; but I do not know whether they know one end of a bullock from another. They may take the view that they do not like both ends and the middle is uncomfortable. Either way, it is important that people should know about the countryside and should care about what is going on there. Those views should be expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is pointed out to me. It is perfectly true that the noble Lord knows a lot about the countryside; but one man on the Government Front Bench is not many. Indeed, noble Lords opposite point with great glee to all the Peers sitting on the Front Bench here, and to all those sitting behind me. Of course they know about agriculture. I am also looking over there. If they know about agriculture, why did only two of their number take part in a debate which consisted of 35 speakers?
In fact, there is a good deal of expertise, not just in agriculture—indeed, it would be too childish to say so—but in many other respects, which can have a vent in this House. I venture to suggest that that is a good thing. Noble Lords may wonder who would come to this House and speak if they did not have the ability to vote. If they did not come here because they could not vote, noble Lords opposite would be quite content. They would say, "Well, people can come but they don't bother to do so. We can carry on quite happily without them".
I really cannot see what the objection is to saying that noble Lords and the hereditary peerage can continue. After all, the latter have been here for hundreds of years—indeed, noble Lords opposite cannot just regard it as something which is of no value at all and which can be quietly brushed aside. It is of value and cannot be pushed to one side. I cannot see why that cannot continue with hereditary Peers, and so on, being able to participate and talk but not to vote; and, incidentally, being able to come and participate in what happens in your Lordships' House.
If one has been a very good Foreign Secretary, such as my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, one might get promoted—some would say he was promoted—and be sent to the House of Lords. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Hurd was a very distinguished Foreign Secretary when he was in the other place. He, too, was promoted and came to this place. My noble friend Lord Carrington was also a very distinguished Foreign Secretary, but what will happen to him? He will get thrown out. That cannot be right. He will not be allowed to come into the House. He will not be allowed to come in and have

259
lunch. Even retired bishops can come in and have lunch. If you are a Member of the House of Commons and you get thrown out, you can go there and have lunch. But, under the Government's Bill, if you are a Member of the House of Lords, they say: "No, we don't want anything to do with you at all. Go out, and never come in again".
I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is a very genial character; indeed, I can see that in his face. We can all tell people's characters from what they look like. He will understand the reasoning behind this amendment. You cannot throw out 600 years of history and say, rather like kicking a bit of muck out of the house, "We don't want that any more". The fact is—I can understand this—they do not want hereditary Peers to come and vote. I understand that even if I do not accept it. However, there is really no reason why hereditary Peers should not participate and try to contribute to what is going on here thereby helping some noble Lords who are a little deficient in certain knowledgeable matters. Indeed, they could help your Lordships to come to conclusions upon which you could then enjoy voting—something in which the hereditary Peers would not be able to participate.
On reflection, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider that this is an acceptable amendment. I should remind him that one of the arts of getting a difficult Bill through is to accept certain amendments—in other words, throw the dogs a bone and keep them happy. Noble Lords opposite really have been deeply stubborn over all this. They have not moved an inch; as I said, they have just put their heads down like Hereford bulls and charged ahead. This would be a good opportunity for them to show that they really are quite understanding and that they would be prepared to help and give a little. If they were to do so, we would all make a good deal of progress and be a lot happier. Indeed, the Government would have conceded nothing of value. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should advise Members of the Committee that if Amendment No.16 is accepted I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos.17 or 17A.
The Earl of Longford: I rise to express my support for the proposal put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Of course, I do so as a good Labour man of 63 years' standing. I joined the party, having started in the wrong direction, many years before the present Prime Minister was born. So I come forward as a good Labour man. In 1968 when I was the Leader of the House I brought the measure forward and it was supported by the Labour government, the Conservative leaders and everyone else, including the Liberals who were then mostly Labour if I remember rightly. But at any rate that was good Labour doctrine. So do not let us have any idea that it was some kind of strange perverted heresy.
The noble Earl was humorous about this matter. I speak with just as strong a feeling. Now having reached advanced years my sight is not so good and I cannot tell the difference between a life Peer and a hereditary when
260
I look at them. I cannot even tell the difference between their speeches although my hearing is perfectly sound. They both seem to talk good sense. I realise that we see only some of the hereditaries here. Out of 750 hereditaries, a small proportion attend. It is no good trying to defend 750 hereditary Peers and their right to attend when two-thirds of them do not attend at all, or seldom attend. Therefore, the case for fundamentally altering the arrangements is irresistible. To prove that, I stayed up with the help of the Chief Whip and his unique staff until three in the morning to vote for a Second Reading. Nevertheless one could perfectly well tack on this proposal. It was accepted all those years ago by the Labour government of the time. There has been no real change since. The only argument produced by a government spokesman on the Front Bench the other day was that there were not many life Peers then. I do not think that that is a convincing argument. Either the measure made sense in those days or it makes sense now. Personally, I think it makes sense now.
I shall go to my grave saying that this House is a valuable House. I believe in this House; I believe in it as it is now. That does not mean that it is perfect; it needs reform, but reforms usually involve some damage somewhere. I want to minimise the damage. There will be grave damage if some of our best Members are kicked out, sacked and excluded. As I say, that will damage the House. The House will be a worse place without them. I am afraid therefore that I strongly support this amendment.
Lord Goodhart: We have had an interesting discussion on various versions of voting rights this evening. We started with the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who proposed that certain Members of your Lordships' House should have weighted votes. We then had the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, who proposed that certain Members of your Lordships' House should have weightless votes. Now we have heard the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, propose that certain Members of your Lordships' House should have no votes at all.
I had intended to make a speech to explain why we oppose the amendment of the noble Earl, but I have decided not to do so, not only because of the hour but also because I have decided that I could not possibly have put the case against first and second-class Members of your Lordships' House more clearly than the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, during the debate on Amendment No.14A. I am happy, therefore, to rest my case by endorsing everything that he said on that subject.
Lord Eden of Winton: As I understand it, this amendment goes right back to the very root of the Labour Party's manifesto commitment. I think I am right in saying that the Labour Party's manifesto commitment was presented as a reform of the House of Lords and a reform of Parliament. There seem to me to be two main reasons why the Labour Party put that forward and why it thought that it would achieve a great deal of support.
As I understand them, the two reasons are the following. First of all, there was the "class" factor, if I can call it that—the resentment that anyone by right of

261
birth should be entitled to a place in Parliament and to exercise power over the legislative processes of Parliament. I think that that is an understandable point of view although I find it on the whole an unworthy position for a political party of this country to adopt.
The second reason was resentment against the built- in, weighted majority of the Conservative Party in this House, which the Labour Party understandably sought to rectify so that matters came into balance. That was the way it was presented. The two points were made strongly by government spokesmen at Second Reading, and riot just in this House; they were made forcefully in another place. The resentment against the inherited rights was made perfectly clear on the grounds that they had been acquired by birth and that they contributed to the incorrect, unworthy or unjustified balance in this House. That is the position.
If I have not expressed those points in the way that Members on the Benches opposite would express them, I apologise. Nevertheless, I believe that those are the two basic sentiments which inspired the inclusion of this reference in the Labour Party manifesto. There is no reform there—there is change, yes. If it had been about reform, we should not be going through all the paraphernalia of a Royal Commission, a Joint Committee of both Houses and consideration of all these factors. Had it been about reform, the Labour Party would have had its proposals ready and waiting. It was not about reform; it was about two elements that were a feature of the representation in this House against which the Labour Party had strong feelings of resentment.
The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Ferrers meets that very point. It removes the right to vote in this place by virtue of being an hereditary Peer. Is not that what the Labour Party manifesto said? It also removes the undue, over-weighted balance of votes on the part of the Conservative Party in this House. Is not that what the manifesto was all about? So I cannot understand why the Government should not accept my noble friend's amendment. It seems an eminently sensible, modest, moderate proposal, supported by the noble Earl opposite, who has long experience, and it fully meets the commitment in the manifesto. I very much hope that the Minister will accept it.
Lord Peston: Perhaps we on this side may be allowed to join in. It seems to me that some of the arguments proposed are simply wrong. I have tried desperately to understand the position of the Opposition on these matters and to look for rational argument.
The fundamental position with which I am concerned and, listening to the views from the Front Bench, my party is concerned, is that the hereditary principle is simply wrong. That is the beginning and end of the matter. It has nothing to do with the quality of the hereditary Peers.
Lord Eden of Winton: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. He said that the hereditary principle is wrong. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was at pains to make clear that what he was concerned to change was the right by
262
heredity to sit and vote in this House. There was no question of attacking the fundamental principle of heredity, which continues.
Lord Peston: The noble Lord does not understand what I am saying, although he produced exactly the right words. It is not acceptable in any legislature of any parliament that people should sit, legislate, speak arid vote as a result of a hereditary position. That is the beginning, the end and the whole of it. It has nothing to do with the quality of hereditary Peers. I stand second to none in my admiration of many of them. I would never argue that they are somehow inferior to me or make a poorer contribution.
Perhaps I may say directly to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in terms of his quality, that he will not lose the right to be a nominated Peer. Some of us would very much welcome him, and others, here in that form. But it is intolerable that anybody at all—including noble Lords on this side of the House—should sit here simply because their fathers were here before them. That is the only principle involved. It has nothing to do with personal denigration; it has nothing to do with lack of appreciation. It certainly has nothing to do with agriculture. The notion that somehow or other that is the key element in the future of our great country is about as preposterous an argument as I have heard in many a long time—and, as the noble Earl knows, I have sat through many preposterous arguments. I have even put forward one or two myself.
That is why some of us are bewildered beyond belief as to what the Opposition are up to. The issue starts with the hereditary principle and ends with the hereditary principle. We are opposed to it. I am looking around and I can see several noble Lords whom I still regard as my friends. I would like to see them remain here. Under most of the likely reforms, the leaders of their parties will be in a position to nominate them, but they would then be here in their own right having been so nominated, as I am. They would be no worse than me. That would be their position.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: Can the noble Lord explain why nominated Peers have this great democratic principle at heart? Why should anyone who is nominated be any more democratic than someone who happens to be here by virtue of winning the genetic lottery?
Lord Peston: We are now going back to the beginning of our debates on this. The reason is that nominated Peers, whether on the opposition side—there are several nominated Peers there—or on this side—I am not saying that we are any good—were nominated by Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition. That opportunity is still available to noble Lords opposite.
That is what the argument is about. It is not about who is better or who is worse, who are friends or who are enemies; it is about the hereditary principle which I heard my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and my noble friends on the Front Bench argue against a few hours ago. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord.

263
Lord Eden, that I should like to believe that I would hold that view even if overwhelmingly the hereditary Peers were all socialists.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: Before the noble Lord sits down, there are many on this side of the House who are considerably puzzled by what is being said on the other. The noble Lord has twice said that the hereditary principle is wrong. Will he say whether he extends that view to the Throne?
Lord Peston: That is an absurd question with which to intervene. We are discussing a House of Parliament within a parliamentary democracy. I am not for one moment suggesting that the eldest child of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, cannot inherit his title; assuming that the noble Earl has great lands—I do not know whether he has or not—I am not for one moment suggesting that he cannot pass them on; I am not even suggesting that his genetic make-up and that of his dear wife cannot be passed on to his children. I am simply saying that no rational philosopher, when considering parliamentary democracy, would remotely argue for a hereditary peerage. That is what the Bill is about. It is not about the relative quality of hereditary Peers and life Peers. We have had at least five days of Second Reading-type debate; we are to have three days in Committee; and I am told that we have many more days to come. I should like to focus on the one central theme and agree that we disagree—I am not saying for one moment that we do not disagree—but we should forget all the extraneous stuff which keeps coming up and which simply has nothing to do with what the Bill is about. That is all I am trying to say.
Lord Palmer: Along with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I put my name to the amendment. One of his main reasons for putting forward the idea of hereditary Peers being able to speak and not vote—I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong—is that, as the Bill stands, the House will lose a great deal of expertise. One thinks of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, after his long parliamentary career and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who has spent many, many years in the House. I beg the Government Front Bench to take that point on board.
As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, there are noble Lords with experience of conservation and the heritage. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, seemed to say, "Forget about agriculture", but agriculture is an extremely important industry. When I initiated a debate on agriculture, 21 noble Lords put down their names to speak, of whom 17 were hereditary Peers. Without those 17 hereditary Peers, the debate would have been a non-event.
I wholeheartedly support the noble Earl's amendment. It seems to meet the point to which the Government object—the right of hereditary Peers to troop through the Lobbies. If one interviewed some noble Lords on the Government Benches after they had been through
264
the Division Lobbies and asked them what they had been voting about, some might say, "Have I been voting?" This amendment would remove that problem.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: As I understand it, the debate is something to do with agriculture. However, the fact is that I cannot understand the amendment, although it comes from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, a man whom I greatly admire. I disapprove of the means of nominating hereditary Peers, but I make this practical suggestion. What is to stop the nomination of the very good Tories, and others who are hereditary Peers, so that they can speak and vote? That is logical. But we should not have turned loose on us the vast mass of backwoodsmen. I have listened to some of their recent speeches. Surely it would be a great blessing if they were not allowed to speak and we were content then with the good Tory hereditary Peers who abound on those Benches.
11 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: I have put my name to this amendment and I should like, with diffidence, to support most strongly the speech of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. In my view, an interim House, retaining as a transitional measure a considerable number of non-voting hereditary Peers, is greatly to be preferred to what the Bill offers.
My noble friend's amendment deals with the question of the political imbalance of the House, but more than that can be said about it. It can be said that the House would function with 500 life Peers and it may be that, according to the lights of the Prime Minister, it would function better than the present House. But what one has to look at is cumulation and not alternatives. It is certainly true that committees would be filled, Questions would be asked, speeches would be made, amendments would be moved and Divisions would take place, but functioning in that sense is not enough. Bare functioning is not what makes a second Chamber. Important functions of this present second Chamber include the scrutiny of legislation and the interrogation of government. In performing both those functions, the continued presence in the interim House of hereditary Peers in an advisory capacity or indeed as advocates would add considerable weight to that of the 500 life Peers because of the bank of parliamentary experience that hereditary Peers carry with them.
I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say about this amendment. I hope I shall not hear that it falls within the ambit of the anathema announced by the Lord Chancellor at Second Reading. Equally, I shall be interested to hear the reply of the noble and learned Lord. It is not always wise to anticipate replies, but I expect him to refer to the manifesto and the mandate and then to pick up the point hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Peston; namely, that what matters at the moment is not so much the political balance of the House of Lords as the fact that the hereditary principle is wrong. It is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will vote against the Weatherill amendment.

265
However, I have today tabled an amendment to the Weatherill amendment. Had my noble friend Lord Geddes not left the Chamber, I would have told him that I do not intend to withdraw it. The amendment would reduce the number of hereditary Peers entering the interim House with votes and allow a larger counter-balancing number of hereditary Peers to remain in the interim House without votes. There is nothing permanent about this. Such an amendment can be contained in and sheltered by the Weatherill amendment. It can therefore be discussed on its merits and cannot easily he challenged legitimately on the grounds that it offends either the manifesto or the Salisbury-Addison accord.
There will be room for argument as to the appropriate balance of voting and speaking Peers. As my noble friend Lord Cranborne made clear, there will be room for argument as to whether there should be second-class Peers in this House at all. That discussion is for another time. I speak as a potential second-class Peer. All I can say to my noble friend, who, if there is any justice in this world, is a potential first-class Peer, is that it seems a little rich to be told that all Peers should be equal in this House and that therefore I, as a second-class Peer, should go.
The Earl of Erroll: First, I should like to correct the impression that all Peers have vast rolling acres. I do not farm and never have. Governments of both political colours have ensured that through taxation. I have written computer programs, designed software systems, done smartcard development and am on the Internet daily. One can have the virtual votes of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on the Internet very easily. Secondly, I had not realised that former MPs can have lunch in the Palace whenever they feel like it, which sounds very attractive.
Lord Eden of Winton: I believe I am right in saying that former Members of Parliament who are Members of this House may enjoy the club premises of the other place but not if they cease to be Members of Parliament.
The Earl of Erroll: I misunderstood.
I am against the idea that Peers should be able to speak without having a vote. I believe that to be a great nuisance. On the other hand, it is most important that stage two legislation goes through. If a lot of Peers are to bore everyone to death in the interim and force through stage two, I believe that to be a very good thing.
Lord Desai: I do not want to go into the question of club rights, but noble Lords will no doubt agree that any Member of this House who has left it to become a Member of the other place is perfectly free to come to have lunch here.
In the long history of de-colonisation one is again and again presented with the foreign ruler who very touchingly asks, "What will you people do without us? How will you govern yourselves? We are so good, wise and nice. We hate to leave you to your own devices because we love you. Without our wisdom, experience and knowledge, how will you carry on?". There were
266
some lovely rulers and law-makers. The point, however, as John Stuart Mill said long ago, is that "Self-government is better than good government".
What we are saying is that, good as hereditary peers are—and they are marvellous people—there cannot be any excuse in principle for them to be here. The idea that somehow, without their great wisdom, experience, knowledge and so on we will be bereft and the world will be poorer is just tosh—if that is parliamentary language.
As my noble friend Lord Peston said, it is very hard for us on this side to comprehend why people do not understand. It is not the hereditary principle as biology. We cannot change biology. We have children: sometimes we have some property which we pass on. That is not what is being discussed. When we speak of the hereditary principle we are not simply talking about. the hereditary principle but about the right of the first-born son of a hereditary Peer to come and legislate. That is what we do not want.
Once we do not want that, with the right to speak as with the right to vote, then we just want rid of it. That is clearly stated and I do not know why we have to go through endless debate: "Do let us come. Do let us give the benefit of our wisdom". Thank you very much, but can we please get on with it and have a good second Chamber?
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I would much rather stay in your Lordships' House and vote and speak, but I know that I could not do that if the House is balanced and it becomes a political House—which I would regret. The reason why I could not do it is that, when I inherited my position and my properties, I also inherited what I felt was an obligation to repay some of my good fortune by taking on an element of public service. I am chairman of three charities.
I can see some merit in these amendments, because at least if one could come here one would he more useful to those people whom one serves by, in any year, having to make the points they wish to make. I am fully aware that it is not only people with hereditary peerages who have a prominent position in public service; but one of the reasons we are asked to do these things is that we have a voice in your Lordships' House, in order to make the points which arise in these situations. Such points are not always made on the Floor of this House but by what are called "the usual channels", or at least they were during the last government. I find that they tend to be rather less active under the present one. Nonetheless, things change. We do have a valuable role to play by being able to make the points of the people we serve who are less fortunate than we are by having access to your Lordships' House.
Lord Monson: My name is on Amendment No.16 because it is a paving amendment, not only to Amendment No.22 which we have been discussing but also to Amendment No.23, to which I spoke last week. I still prefer my Amendment No.23 for a variety of reasons, but I do not intend to return to it tonight. I am happy to support Amendment No.22, which achieves most of the same objectives.

267
Almost exactly four hours ago the noble Lord, Lord Richard, complained that acceptance of Amendment No.13 and the two amendments grouped with it would mean that Labour would continue to be unfairly defeated by the in-built Conservative majority, or, to be more accurate, the in-built non-Labour majority, for a few months longer than would otherwise be the case. The noble Lord made a perfectly valid point. But he cannot object to this amendment on those grounds. On the contrary, acceptance of this amendment would help Labour to win more victories, unless the powerful, eloquent arguments of the non-voting hereditaries convinced a number of Labour Back-Benchers to change their views and defy the diktats of their Whips. It may be that prospect which alarms the Government Front Bench.
Lord Davies of Coity: As has been said so many times in this Chamber, the Labour Government have presented a Bill to both Houses of Parliament to achieve what was mooted nearly 100 years ago: to remove the right of hereditary Peers to vote and to sit in this Chamber in order to participate in the legislative process.
The purport of Amendment No.16 is, "Yes, we accept that we can no longer vote, but we want to sit and speak". At best that seems to be a damage limitation exercise and at worst something of a begging bowl. If it is a begging bowl, I regret that the hereditary Peers are displaying a lack of dignity which I would not have expected from them.
Why would they want to sit in this Chamber to speak but not to vote? Is it to maintain club rights; or is it to attempt to frustrate the activities of a future government because of their hereditary privilege? I find it incredible that these amendments have been put before us in this Chamber. I hope that they will be withdrawn. I hope that the hereditary Peers will recognise that the Labour Government, with the support of the British people, are putting forward a Bill that is not antagonistic to individuals but to a system whose removal is long overdue.
The hereditary Peers in this House may well justify the life peerages given to them for their expertise and their contribution. But the system has to be removed. It is no longer defensible. I do not think that it has been defensible for most of this century. It is not defensible today. I hope that the Opposition will recognise the views of the Labour Government which have the support of the British people, and that hereditary Peers will go from this House with the dignity and respect that they deserve but which they will lose if they perpetuate these arguments.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: As a life Peer, I wish to make one point in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I can assure noble Lords that it is not only the hereditary Peers who support the amendments. I welcome and have found most valuable the views expressed to this House by hereditary Peers. But I want to keep the Cross-Benchers.
268
The Cross-Bench element in this House is of crucial importance. We are sweeping away all the hereditary Cross-Benchers.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: Are noble Lords opposite saying that hereditary Peers can stay on the Cross-Benches? That seemed to be the reaction. I understand that we are referring to all hereditary Peers. I understand that 70 per cent of the Cross-Benchers are hereditary Peers. Nothing has been said in the course of debates on the Bill to reassure us that we shall still have that strong element of Cross-Bench Peers. I want them. I warmly support the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Ellenborough: At this late hour, I support my noble friend Lord Ferrers, and especially as I put my name down to the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, which was briefly debated in the rather confused debate on Tuesday last.
I believe that the Bill becomes increasingly pointless and unnecessary as we go along, especially if full reform is on the way. The object of the exercise is to remove 750 hereditary Peers. However, since about half or more never come, they have removed themselves for practical purposes. So that does not get the Government very far.
Then if the Weatherill amendment is passed, 100 or so of the most active and most frequent attenders will remain. That, too, does not get the Government very far in their objective. That leaves some 150 hereditary Peers whose future this and similar amendments address. I refer to those hereditary Peers who come fairly often, but some relatively seldom, especially when they feel they have a contribution to make.
During the two debates on the White Paper and Second Reading, a considerable number of noble Lords spoke in favour of the proposition that most hereditary Peers would no longer have a vote but should still be entitled to speak. As other noble Lords have said, it is difficult to see what objection the Government can have to such a non-divisive and acceptable way of proceeding.
Incidentally, the Labour Party manifesto is most misleading. It is, of course, my bedtime reading, but I have yet to find a page which refers to the removal of the hereditary Peers' right to speak. The media have taken up the proposal that hereditary Peers can no longer vote, but they never say that they can no longer speak. Many people come up to me and say, "Oh dear, it is bad luck that you won't be able to vote any more, but never mind because you will be able to speak".
In any case, the whole proposition of non-voting Peers was endorsed by the Labour government of 1968, in particular by such eminent Labour figures as the late Richard Crossman and the noble Earl, Lord Longford. The whole thrust was to provide for the need for the participation of a considerable number of part-time hereditary Peers with wide interests and experience who could make useful contributions. With or without the Weatherill amendment, that still makes sense. It deals

269
successfully with the problem of the in-built Conservative majority and the hereditary principle and it provides continuity at least for as long as the transitional House exists.
The criticism made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was that hereditary Peers coming to speak is no longer necessary because compared with 1968 there are so many more life Peers now. The only problem is that so many life Peers do not attend.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I thank my noble friend Lady Knight and I support the amendment because I am as concerned about defence and what will be said about it in this House as others have been about agriculture. I remember a defence debate last year with 35 speakers. Only two came from that side of the House. That is very serious.
I recognise that the Royal Commission will produce proposals for bringing expertise of every kind into this House. It may well solve that problem then, but in the mean time we could have a gap if the Government have their way. I believe that it is incumbent on us to consider our responsibility in that respect. We are better informed here than are Members in the other place. That is partly a matter of age and experience because most of the people in the other place, and most of the new arrivals here, are too young even to have done national service.
I am not being prejudiced; I am concerned about a very important subject. I hope that consideration will be given to that in our debates.
Lord Strathclyde: The most interesting speech I have heard tonight was that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He said that he did not know the position of the Opposition. Clearly, he did not sit through as many of the Second Reading speeches that were made from these Front Benches as I did. I shall refer him back to Second Reading and the speeches made from this Front Bench. He might then care to examine the report of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, where he will see another furtherance of a Tory position which is forward-thinking, and then he will contrast both those positions with that of his own party.
Lord Peston: I entirely concede that I have not had the stamina to listen to as many speeches as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and that is a weakness on my part. But what I do not understand is this: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in his brilliant report, which I have read, entirely accepts that the hereditary Peers must go. That is the beginning and the end of all this. What I am trying to work out, as a devoted Member of the House of Lords, is what the rest of all these amendments are about.
I am quite innocent in this matter. From my reading of his report, the position of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the position of his party is that the
270
hereditary Peers must go. I just want to know what is going on here, day in, day out. That is all, and it is very simple.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: The noble Lord should wait for my amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: The first answer to that question is that we are desperately trying to improve what is an extremely bad Bill.
Lord Eden of Winton: I think the noble Lord, Lord Peston, indicated that the report of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay recommended that hereditary peers should go. That is a misinterpretation. My noble and learned friend took as his starting point the assumption that the Bill now before the Committee had become an Act of Parliament.
Lord Peston: I have no idea what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, inwardly believes. I have only his report, which is totally predicated on the assumption that the hereditary Peers will go. I repeat that certainly the analytical part of that report is quite outstanding. That is why many of us sitting here who are interested in the next step cannot understand what the Opposition is doing about this stage, which does not seem to be consistent. I do not want to delay the Committee, because there is still a large number of amendments for it to deal with, but I would like to see some rationality and consistency from the Opposition.
Lord Strathclyde: I, too, do not particularly want to continue the debate about the report of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, which I, too, thought was excellent. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Peston's interpretation of that report is. somewhat different from mine. While his whoty elected option clearly removes the ability for the hereditary peerage to sit in the House of Lords, it does exactly the same for the life Peers, so I think there is no difference between us on that.
However, the other option clearly indicates that it is open to the independent appointments commission to recommend that hereditary Peers should continue to perform a function in the House of Lords. So I believe that his contention is wrong.
The major point that I want to make is to contrast that with the sheer negativity that we get from noble Lords opposite. We are told that this is a Bill that we must not debate, because it was in the manifesto and was passed by the people. We have heard today and at other parts of the Committee stage that somehow it is offensive to propose something different—even if not terribly radically different.
We find what the Bill does offensive. It creates a House of patronage, a House of cronies, a House of political appointees. Noble Lords opposite may not like that description. They may feel offended by But that is what the Bill does. I do not accuse any noble Lords of being like that; maybe some of them are. My point is

271
that once the Bill is through, there will be a very great temptation to have more and more purely political appointees totally in the hands of the Prime Minister.
Later in the Bill, we shall reach amendments which deal with an appointments commission. There has been no indication whatever from the Government that they want to put such a commission in place now. I understand that the Prime Minister can, without any legislation, set up an appointments commission now to deal with this particular issue of what happens when a House comprises entirely appointees.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers accepts what many noble Lords have said on all sides of the House; that hereditary Peers have brought something valuable to the House which should not necessarily be abolished in one go.
In 1968, the then Labour government's position was that such a proposal was perfectly all right. It is the one which Mr. Wilson's government put forward, which was approved in this House, but it went wrong in another place for reasons which are now well known. If it was good enough in 1968, why is it not good enough now? Did the Labour Party consider it again in writing its manifesto and if not, why not? Were there discussions with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who spoke yet again with such power on the subject this evening?
Moreover, the point was made this evening that, perversely, if the Government are so opposed to the hereditary peerage, by accepting this amendment they would achieve broad parity between the two main political parties so that they win the votes and they make it more likely that we shall go on to a stage two.
The fundamental problem that we have had with the Bill is that there is no vision of a second stage. That is what is missing from the Bill. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that she has a vision and ideas, but they are personal ideas and they must not be shared with anyone else. I understand that that is the discipline of the Labour Party. But somehow I sense that we are missing out on something. There is obviously a great seedbed of thought going on in the Labour Party, none of which is being shared with this House, the rest of the Labour Party or, indeed, the general public.
My noble friend Lord Cranborne, in an earlier intervention, made some extremely good points about the issue of sitting and voting. As a former Chief Whip, I have every sympathy with the points he raised, but I hope that in reply the Minister will concentrate not just on the points made by noble friend Lord Cranborne but address also the point made by my noble friend Lord Ferrers who said that he was like a dog who needed a bone. This is an extremely good bone.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. I did not say that I was like a dog. I suggested that the Government should give something to others, as though they were dogs. But I did not say that I was a dog!
Lord Strathclyde: I could not quite work out what my noble friend was going to do with a bone if he was not a dog.
272
There are a number of issues on which the Government could be rather more generous and forward-thinking in their attitude towards proposals which have been made by noble Lords not just on this side of the Committee but also from their own Back Benches and from the Cross Benches. I hope that that is one area on which we shall receive a positive answer.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I think we are entitled to know whether or not he is going to advise those in his party in this House how to vote in relation to this amendment and, in particular, whether he is going to recommend to them that they should vote, if it is pressed to a Division, in favour of an amendment which involves the continuation of the right of hereditary Peers to sit. So far, he has not indicated his position in relation to that.
Lord Strathclyde: I am not making this proposal. The Government have put forward a Bill and my noble friend has put forward a proposal. I was asking about the Government's attitude to this. A perfectly good proposal has been made by my noble friend. We have not put it forward from the Front Bench. A number of issues need to be answered and I hope that the Minister will do so. It is not for me to do the Government's job for them. They must come up with answers in relation to their own Bill.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am amazed by that answer. Therefore, the position is that the leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords has no view, as I understand it, on whether those in his party in this House should vote for or against the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, or if he does have a view he is not prepared to say what it is. I am slightly surprised by that. I thought that the purpose of his speech was to express the view of the Conservative Party on the amendment. I was obviously wrong.
I turn to the amendment. Perhaps I may apologise for not being the Lord Advocate. I should have mentioned earlier that I was not the Lord Advocate. I am quite sure that the noble Earl would have pitched his very persuasive speech in a different way.
I fully understand the purpose and intent of the noble Earl's amendment. He believes, because he has made it clear at all times, that the hereditary Peers should be entitled to stay in this House to vote and sit, by which he means they should take part fully in the proceedings. He accepts that the amendment relates only to the rights of hereditary Peers to sit but, without any shame or apology, and in a most eloquent speech, he puts that forward as an appropriate proposition. I respect him for holding that view and I understand it. However, I most vehemently disagree with it.
Underlying the Government's approach to the hereditary Peers is the belief that it is wrong in principle that a person should have a right to sit or vote in a legislative House on the basis only of that person's birth. They believe that there are many, many absolutely splendid hereditary Peers. I must tell the House that there are a large number of absolutely splendid people

273
who are not hereditary Peers. These absolutely splendid people who, in some cases, though not many, are as splendid as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, do not have the right to question the Government in the legislative Chamber; to sit on the committees in the House of Lords; to put down oral or written Questions; to participate in debates or seek to persuade other legislators of the rightness of their position. It seems to me unfair that simply by reason of birth a person has that right even if that right were not to include the right to vote. That is the position of this Government. I do not believe it could be made clearer. I do not think—
Lord Mancroft: The noble and learned Lord has been most persuasive and helpful, as always. Can he tell me how fair it is that you sit in your Lordships' House merely by friendship with the Prime Minister? Is that a good idea? What principle does that have?
A noble Lord: Ignore it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, I shall not ignore it. As regards the appointment of life Peers, it seems to me that they are entitled to be regarded and appointed on merit and on the basis of their past experience. I am happy to he judged on that basis and it seems to be appropriate that I should be.
Lord Mancroft: Perhaps I may be forgiven if I have misled the Committee and, indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I did not aim my remarks at any noble Lord in particular. nor would I dream of so doing. However, the issue has been raised and it is a correct issue. I do not defend the principle of the hereditary peerage. I have always said that to either attack it or defend it is ludicrous. But the principle that the executive that commands a majority in one House should also have the sole ability to appoint to the second Chamber is completely ludicrous. If that is a better principle than the hereditary one, I understand nothing of the principle.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, I apologise for misunderstanding the noble Lord's remark. I took it too personally when I should not have done so. Secondly, the position as regards the comments of the Prime Minister in relation to this matter is that we seek parity with the Conservative Party. We do not seek in any way to pack the House, nor do we have the ability to do that. Thirdly, it seems to me much more sensible that people should be appointed on the basis of their own qualities rather than those of their parents, and they can be so judged. It might be appropriate for me to finish my speech rather than continue with this argument.
We set out our position perfectly clearly. It seems to us that we have principle on our side. It is a clear and easily understood principle. It is the principle that goes through the Bill. The proposal of the noble Earl cuts right across that principle by allowing hereditary Peers to sit, albeit not vote, in this Chamber. We therefore object to it and ask the Committee to resist the amendment.
274
Perhaps I may deal with two other points in this regard. First, it is said that the Labour government proposed such an amendment in 1968, so why do they not agree to it now? That is a point made by my noble friend Lord Longford. The position in 1968 was that there were fewer than 160 life Peers, none of whom had over 10 years' experience. The position now is that there are 500 life Peers, appointed over a 41-year period. That is a radically different situation when considering the position in relation to this Chamber.
Our guiding principle throughout this Bill is that we believe it to be wrong for anyone to be a Member of Parliament on the basis of inheritance alone. That point was made clearly in the manifesto when we said that the right we sought to remove was to sit and to vote. So there can be no question but that we have made our position clear in the manifesto. I also agree entirely with the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, who deprecates the idea of a two-tier system in the Lords. For all those reasons, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: The noble and learned Lord—I believe I am permitted to call him such—as usual makes a very persuasive speech. I apologise if I referred to him as the Lord Advocate. That was a slip of the tongue. I should have said "the Minister of the Dome" and then I would have been all right.
The noble and learned Lord makes a persuasive speech; obdurate, as all the government speeches are because they just say "No, no, no" to everything, regardless of the argument. That is a great pity. He said that I put forward this amendment without any shame or apology. He is quite right. I feel no shame in putting it forward, and offer no apology either. I am trying to go along with the Government. They do not want hereditary Peers to vote. I say that that is fine for the purposes of this amendment; we are quite happy not to vote. But why not continue to allow our expertise to be expressed by allowing hereditary Peers to speak. should they so wish? The noble and learned Lord finds that difficult.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he listens to his own Front Bench. That underlines his problem. He listens to his Front Bench a little too much because they will say "No" to everything. He said that hereditary Peers are wrong; that is the beginning and the end of it. That really is, as I said earlier, hereditary cleansing. Get rid of all hereditary Peers. No matter what they can do; get rid of them.
Lord Peston: I heard the noble Earl make that remark earlier. It is most unlike him to use that kind of intemperate language. It is not "hereditary cleansing" because, unlike the analogy that echoes from that remark, none of us is saying that hereditary Peers should not sit in your Lordships' Chamber. We would welcome such people sitting here as nominated Peers. I enjoy that sort of intemperate language, but it is not very helpful on this occasion.

275
There is no suggestion that this Chamber would be a better place without the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. We are simply saying that he should be here as a Peer nominated by the Leader of his Party, not because his father was Earl Ferrers.
Earl Ferrers: I do not believe it was intemperate language; it is factual language.
It does not matter which Member of the Front Bench opposite we choose; we can knock them all down like sparrows one after the other. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer; the Lord Chancellor; the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn; and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, have all said that hereditary Peers are out. I am saying that that is the equivalent of cleansing.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, shakes his head, but if he will stop shaking his head for half a minute until I get to the end of my sentence, he will hear me say that he said that I ought to be here—it was courteous of him to say so—by virtue of being appointed. But this Bill says nothing about appointment; it says "Get rid of hereditary Peers". It is true that some noble Lords opposite have said that when the Weatherill amendment comes into action, there will be 100 hereditary Peers. But what is this Bill about? Are we getting rid of all hereditary Peers or are we retaining 100 Peers? At the moment, we do not know. The Bill in front of us proposes to get rid of all hereditary Peers. If the Weatherill amendment is passed, 91 Peers, or whatever, can be retained. But is the Bill one for getting rid of hereditary Peers or one for retaining them? That is a pretty fundamental difference.
Noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite are in a quandary. They do not know. They have not told us whether we are all supposed to go or whether about a hundred of us will stay. We just do not know the answer. When that suggestion was put forward in another place, it was turned down. They said that they did not want any hereditary Peers at all. However, now the proposal is before us and everyone talks as if there will be a hundred or so hereditary Peers. That is the mess that the Government find themselves in. Indeed, that is why my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the Opposition, said that we do not know what is happening.
All I am trying to say to your Lordships in the most courteous way possible is that you can remove all the business of hereditary Peers voting to get over the problem that has infuriated people so much and still have the advantage of them talking. If that is a bore, then it is a bore. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, said something pretty extraordinary. After all, he has been here for only two years. He said, "All hereditary Peers ought to go. I am all right because I was appointed by my friends. " Apparently everyone else has got to go. The noble Lord added that his view has the support of the British people. Frankly, I do not think that it has. The proposal may be in the Labour Party manifesto. That does not mean that it has the support of the British people. I believe that many British people are glad to see the House of Lords as it is.
276
However, be that as it may—and I do not wish to continue the argument for too long—I think that it would be a good thing if, in the words of the Government, we were to proceed step by step. We should keep the hereditary Peers here who wish to come and speak but stop them from voting. In that way we would satisfy everyone. If noble Lords consider that a good idea, I would be happy if they would demonstrate their agreement. We have sat on these seats for long enough. Indeed, it is time for your Lordships to take a bit of exercise and come down on one side or the other of the argument. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
11.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 82.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Alanbrooke, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L

Annaly, L.

Hemphill, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hooper, B.

Berners, B.

Kintore, E.

Caithness, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Liverpool, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Longford, E.

Clinton, L.

Lyell, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Coleridge, L.

Monson, L.

Cross, V.

Montrose, D.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dundee, E.

Norrie, L.

Dunleath, L.

Northbrook, L.

Eden of Winton, L. [Teller.]

Palmer, L.

Effingham, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Stockton, E.

Erroll, E.

Torrington, V.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Trefgame, L.

Gray, L.

Trenchard, V.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Addington, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ahmed, L.

Desai, L.

Alli, L.

Dixon, L.

Amos, B.

Donoughue, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dubs, L.

Bach, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Berkeley, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bragg, L.

Gilbert, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Goodhart, L.

Brookman, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Burlison, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Carlisle, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hacking, L.

Chandos, V.

Hardie, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Haskel, L.

Crawley. B.

Hayman, B.

David, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

277

Hoyle, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Islwyn. L.

Rea, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Seal]

Richard, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Sawyer, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Simon, V.

[Teller.]

Simon of Highbury, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

McNair, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Monkswell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Newby, L.

Thornton, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L.

Patel, L.

Whitty. L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.51 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No.17:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("be a member of") and insert ("attend, sit or vote in")
The noble Lord said: The words "by virtue of" already appear in Clause 1. I should like to propose a different form of words for the reference to a Member of this House. It has already been suggested that this wording is not particularly apt for the Bill. Clause 1 focuses on the right of a Peer to be a functioning part of the parliamentary process, and precedence in the Appellate Jurisdictions Act, the Titles Deprivation Act and the Life Peerages Act undoubtedly shows that relevant rights are to attend, sit and vote in the House of Lords. My amendment therefore brings this Bill into line with precedent and clarifies what I suggest is some awkwardness in the present drafting. I beg to move.
The Earl of Northesk: I should mention at the outset that the purpose of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, and myself in this amendment may perhaps have been slightly clearer had we been able to move our Amendments Nos.7 and 8 on the original Marshalled List. To use the Government's phrase, and mindful of our debate on the Writ issue, those were stand-alone attempts to re-work the wording of Clause 1, partly to probe the Government's intention and partly to assist them in delivering that intention more accurately and properly. In the event, those debates have not taken place, so we have not been able to tease out the Government on this issue. Therefore, some of our doubts about the intention of Clause 1 remain. I make no more of the point than that.
I make no apology for repeating this point, but from the moment the Bill was first published there were many noble Lords, myself included, who had difficulty with the phrase used in Clause 1, "member of the House of Lords". I still do. What does it mean? More importantly, what is its force in statute? That is a question that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, declined to address when I asked him about it previously.
278
Following the amendment of my noble friends on the Front Bench and that of my noble friend Lord Norrie these questions assume even greater pertinence. I repeat the comment of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that it is interesting to note that the two most recent precedents in this regard—the Life Peerages Act 1958 and the Peerage Act 1963—both avoid reference to "membership of the House of Lords". Both use the more accurate—I am bound to say more elegant—construction that we propose in the amendment; namely, the right to attend the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House.
It is the same precedent to be found in the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and the Titles Deprivation Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred previously. I simply ask, therefore, why the Government have chosen to draft Clause 1 in the way that they have. I repeat: it would assist the Committee if the Government Front Bench could advise us of the statutory precedent for the phrase,
"member of the House of Lords".
In advance of any reply, and without wishing to stretch the point too far, I suggest that it is a nebulous concept. We are bound to assume that the Government's intent in Clause 1 is to focus upon removing the current right of the hereditary peerage as a functioning part of the legislative and parliamentary process. We have been told that often enough.
It is worth noting the wording in the manifesto. it states:
"As an initial, self-contained reform, not de pendent 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 is wholly cognisant of, and consistent, with our amendment. It concentrates upon the rights of "sitting" and "voting" in the House. Clearly, the Bill, for whatever reason, has lost something in translation. It might deliver the spirit of the manifesto commitment, but not its letter. In so doing, it loses much of its impact because, contrary to the way in which Clause 1 is constructed and as intimated by the Lofthouse opinion, it is not membership of the House per se that permits hereditary Peers to be part of the process; rather, it is attendance at this House on command of the Crown in Writs of Summons and the associated rights of sitting and voting.
A persistent theme of the Bill, which I mentioned at Second Reading and which has echoed throughout our debate today, is that however much the Government may eulogise it, simplicity of drafting is no substitute for legislative clarity and coherence. The Government's rhetoric has on occasions characterised the hereditary peerage as being anachronistic and illegitimate. In passing, I simply make the obvious point that no such clarity attaches to all the other and subsequent: elements of the reform of the House. Necessarily, therefore, the question before us as a House of legislative scrutiny has to be whether the drafting will achieve the desired effect. At the very least, if only because of the Lofthouse opinion, there is room for speculation that the use of the woolly phrase,
"member of the House of Lords",

279
will not do so. The Committee's discussions on the amendments of my noble friends on the Front Bench earlier today amply demonstrate that point.
One other thought occurs to me about this. All of us, whatever the route that has brought us to this House, are acutely aware of the duties and obligations that are inter-weaved within our rights of attendance. In some small way, the use of the phrase,
"member of the House of Lords",
unpicks that stitching. In effect, it emphasises not the dignity of the status of your Lordship's House, but the perceived privilege that the Government maintain—too often they have done so in an unseemly way—attaches to the continued presence of the hereditary peerage. A small suspicion looms in my mind. Could it be that the text of the Bill owes as much to making a categoric political statement as it does to giving legislative effect to the Government's policy intention? Does not confusing the two purposes mean that neither is satisfied?
In conclusion, albeit that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and myself are only seeking to probe the Government on the issue at this stage, I cannot see that they can seriously object to the amendment. After all—although he is no longer in his place, I think I can assist the noble Lord, Lord Peston here—it does much to assist their purpose.
Midnight
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: During the course of his interventions this afternoon the Lord Chancellor said that he welcomed the questions that were put to him. I therefore felt that it was only a matter of oversight that had led him not to answer some questions that I had ventured to put to him in a modest contribution that I had made. I asked him whether the term "member of the House of Lords"had been judicially defined and how the Government themselves, if they insisted on employing it in the Bill, defined it. For whatever reason, the noble and learned Lord did not answer those questions. Yet I think that they are rather important for reasons which I will not go over again but which were well rehearsed, particularly in the context of the opinion of Mr. John Lofthouse, which was much mentioned earlier this afternoon.
The amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne overcomes the difficulty that is inherent in the employment, for the first time in statute, of this term. No one quite knows what is meant by "member of the House of Lords". It has the merit, of course, of being simple in the words which are used. We are all in favour of simple language provided that the simple language has a simple meaning. But so far we have not been given any meaning, simple or otherwise, and a great deal turns upon it.
I know that the Government are sceptical, to put it charitably, about the motives of those of us who have put forward amendments with a view to securing greater clarity in the Bill. For my part, I bear that scepticism philosophically because I believe it is important that this
280
House should hold to its task of reviewing, revising and improving the quality of legislation. What, as I understand it, my noble friend intends in the amendment is to put beyond peradventure what the Government are seeking to overturn.
We hear a great deal about the manifesto—far too much—and how unjust it is that people should have the right to attend, sit and vote in the House by reason of the accident of birth. It is that, in terms, which is put forward by my noble friend in this amendment. I shall wait now with great anticipation to hear why the Government will not abandon this hitherto totally undefined term and adopt the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment returns the Committee to some of the questions with which we started off earlier today, or earlier yesterday, depending on how one wishes to look at it. It arises out of discussions and also out of the opinion of Mr. John Lofthouse, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew has just said. As my noble friends have explained, the problem is that the expression "member of the House of Lords" may well be one without any legal meaning. I see that the Lord Advocate is with us. He may well like to give us the Scottish view on this matter. I was disappointed that he did not come to give me a Scottish view on the earlier amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Gray.
Earlier today my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew asked the Lord Chancellor to state unequivocally where the phrase "a member of the House of Lords" had been construed in law and he made that point again because the response he received was probably not very satisfactory. The response was more or less that the phrase is a concept that the man in the street can easily understand. I am not entirely sure whether that is the same as construed in law. I wonder whether the man in the street does understand. Does the man in the street understand that Irish Peers do not necessarily sit in your Lordships' House unless they have UK peerages or that Peers with courtesy titles, with the exception of my noble friend Lord Cranborne, are not allowed to sit here?
For example, my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas is flying the flag as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton in his campaign to gain a seat in the Scottish Parliament, a campaign which I am pretty confident will be successful, and successful on the first-past-the-post system at that. My noble friend had the problem that not many people understood why Lord James Douglas-Hamilton in the past did not sit in the House of Lords and only now sits in this House as Lord Selkirk of Douglas. I do not believe that the man in the street clearly understands the concept.
I also have in mind my honourable friend the Member of Parliament for Devizes, the Earl of Ancram. People may be very confused as to why he sits in the other place and not in this House. The reason is that his is a courtesy title and he is heir to the Marquess of Lothian.

281
1 do not believe that the man in the street can readily understand some of the nuances of titles. It is not a satisfactory' answer simply to say that there is no problem with construction because the man in the street understands it. That is not good enough.
If we are to have this law, the concept of a hereditary peerage should be properly defined. My noble friends have explained why they have used the phrase
"attend, sit or vote in".
That wording has been used in the past. In the past one often heard the argument advanced by parliamentary draftsmen that this was the way it had always been done and it should carry on being done in this way. Some members of the present Government during the passage of the Scotland Bill used the same argument when we suggested that certain words and phrases were not necessary in that measure. They said that that was the way it had always been done. It put the matter beyond doubt because that legal terminology had been used down the ages in legislation. My noble friends suggest the same here.
I shall be interested to hear the noble Lord's explanation of the earlier comment of his noble and learned friend about the understanding of the man in the street. I believe I have proved fairly conclusively that it is very much in doubt that the man in the street understands it because of the complexities to which I referred earlier.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We chose this wording deliberately to make it as comprehensive as possible. I am not aware of what the man in the street thinks of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, as he then was, but if he asks me I shall explain that he possessed that title because he had disclaimed a senior one.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I always seek to be helpful. His title of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton was a courtesy title as he was the younger son of the Duke of Hamilton.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Precisely. But, if anyone has investigated the arcane streams of Scottish peerages, I believe it is correct that he disclaimed his opportunity to use the subordinate title, which nevertheless was a substantive one. If I remember correctly, the titles of the Duke of Hamilton descend in a peculiarly Scottish way. I am glad to see that I have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on these occasions, as so often. If the man in the street, or his wife, then approached me about the problem of the Earl of Ancram I would point out that he was not a real Peer at all but had a courtesy title since his father, the present Marquess, is still alive and the Earl of Ancram—otherwise known as Michael Ancram—is not in receipt of the happy beneficence of a Writ of Acceleration.
I turn to the particular question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. I am not aware that I am able to point to any judicial definition of.
"member of the House of Lords",
Or,
282
"member of the House of Commons".
I am absolutely certain, sure and positive that I cannot point to any legal definition of,
"member of the Welsh Assembly".
Nevertheless, those expressions are found in statute. If someone is expelled from membership of the House of Commons I apprehend that judges will have no difficulty in construing it.
We wanted to have a simple definition that was as comprehensive as possible. It includes the right to attend, sit or vote in the House of Lords. I imagine that it would also include the right to the use of the facilities, otherwise known as club rights.
I think we have it plain, simple and understandable. We do not want continuing arguments in the future as to whether there are any other functions beyond attendance, sitting or voting which might have been former rights of Peers. That is the reason we have adopted this formulation.
Lord Marlesford: I am deeply puzzled, because:if one reads the Explanatory Notes to the Bill one sees the word "membership" defined as the right to sit arid vote. Surely it is the opposite way round? It ought to be. The Bill should have the technical terms of sitting and voting; the Explanatory Notes should have the tnan in the street's meaning of "member".
I would have thought that my noble friend's amendment was extremely sound. It is much better to have the words in the Explanatory Notes in the Bill and the words in the Bill in the Explanatory Notes.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Not really, because this amendment talks about attendance, sitting and vottng, whereas "attendance" is not found in the Explanatory Notes.
Lord Marlesford: That is merely an omission.
Lord Northbrook: Could the Minister comment on counsel's view that Clause 1 as it stands does not change the law? This again goes to what we talked about earlier: that nobody is a Member of the House of Lords by virtue of hereditary peerage but the membership is conferred by the obedience to the Writ of Summons. There is therefore a need for the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We had almost a full two hours on this point, but I can still remember it. What the Lord Chancellor said, and therefore it must be right, was that a hereditary peerage inheres in the person presently entitled to it. However, the right to come to this place depends on the Writ of Summons.
That was the position earlier today and it remains the position now.
The Earl of Northesk: It is self-evident that noble Lords opposite set great store by the manifesto, so hope to pursue this point a little further. It is also

283
self-evident—returning to what my noble friend on the Front Bench said about the man in the street—that the manifesto refers specifically to sitting and voting.
I wonder why the matter has changed in translation from the manifesto, which presumably is understood by the man in the street, in terms of drafting and legislation. I make that point simply because one could be tempted to the conclusion that the intent of the Government here is to make the phrasing of the Bill so comprehensive and transparently intelligible to the man in the street because they now believe that the man in the street did not actually understand the manifesto.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: First, I did not mention the manifesto. Secondly, it has been asserted without any evidence that I have discovered that only 2 per cent of the men in the street understood the manifesto and therefore we wanted to make it clear for the other 98 per cent.
Earl Ferrers: Could I ask the noble Lord a question for my own comprehension, without irritating him too much? He did let something go rather quickly and I did not hear him properly. He spoke about club rights. Did he say that hereditary Peers would continue to have club rights?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Certainly not, and the noble Lord never irritates me. We always have the most harmonious of relationships, which is why our respective friends deeply suspect us.
I did not say that existing hereditary Peers would be entitled to the continuation of club rights. I did not say that, nor did I mean it.
Earl Ferrers: Would the noble Lord be good enough to say what he did say about club rights?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Of course. I was perhaps speaking a little quickly because of the lateness of the hour. What I said was that the three activities described in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, might not sufficiently encompass all aspects of membership of this House: for instance, coming in for a cup of tea; using the car park; using the coat hook, and similar related activities. That might be something rather wider than attending, sitting and voting. For the avoidance of doubt, I simply mentioned that club rights might, for instance, be the object of some noble Lords' future ambitions, and I did not want them to be disappointed by not putting the formula as comprehensively, plainly and simply as possible.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Trefgarne: One of the features of ministerial replies to amendments during the course of these proceedings is that they often raise as many questions as they answer. I fear that that has happened again this evening and I cannot promise the noble Lord that we shall not return to the matter at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment No.17A:
Page 1, line 5, leave out from ("be") to end of line 6 and insert ("by virtue solely of a hereditary peerage a member entitled to vote in the House of Lords except on constitutional matters, pending the implementation of measures ensuring comprehensive reform of the House of Lords which maintain existing powers to control the Executive and such measures receiving Royal Assent")
The noble Lord said: At this early hour of the morning, I thank all noble Lords for being present as I move Amendment No.17A standing in my name. As is so often the case, unless one reads the Bill and the amendment together, the position can be difficult for the man in the street such as myself to understand. It may be wise for me to go through the amendment.
The Bill states:
"Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal".
My amendment provides that no one shall,
"by virtue solely of a hereditary peerage [be] a member entitled to vote in the House of Lords except on constitutional matters".
I do not need to continue with the remainder of the amendment.
There is only one way to know the will of the people, and that is to listen to them. Her Majesty's Government are determined at this stage of the House of Lords Bill to remove a vast number of listeners to many diverse opinions—rural, agricultural, urban or industrial. On defence we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. There are also views expressed on finance. Those listeners express the views heard when speaking on legislation passing through this House.
We are discussing stage one of a reform Bill relating to this legislature. Should noble Lords allow this stage to pass unchallenged, unheeded, the power of the executive will thrive. It will blossom and completely overshadow the importance of the will of the people.
On 21st April a conference was held in the Moses Room. Counsel's opinion was heard and questioned. The opinion is available in the House of Lords Library and is therefore in the public domain. Copies are available to all Members of the House and some have already been posted to noble Lords. During the conference it was made clear that the executive is not empowered to ensure the passage of this Bill by the use of the Parliament Acts. This House should not fear rejecting the Bill by the threat of the use of the Parliament Acts. It is quite apparent that another place is incapable of controlling the powers of the executive. If we are to be responsible to the will of the people we in the House of Lords must do so.
In Amendment No.31, my noble friend Lord Weatherill and others raise a principle which must be applauded; that a certain number of hereditary Peers should be permitted to vote. I argue that such an amendment might be best raised in stage two, and so comply with the wishes of so many of your Lordships that stages one and two should be considered together.
We should consider the two stages together precisely because the will of the people must be pursued. Hence, I recommend that the hereditary Peers should retain the opportunity to vote on all constitutional matters. There are so many sound opinions to be heard from life and hereditary Peers; opinions influenced by the feelings of millions of people outside the walls of Westminster. I call upon your Lordships to consider this amendment favourably. I beg to move.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I shall attempt to reply to the noble Lord's amendment with great animation in order not to invite the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to suggest that I am either exhausted or bored with the proceedings of this House. I am certainly not. If he says that some of our replies are somewhat familiar, I say to him and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, that this displays not boredom or exhaustion but the lateness of the hour, and apologise. It may be because a great many of the same arguments are deployed in advancing some of the amendments.
The noble Lord's amendment is another valiant attempt to find a combination of circumstances in which hereditary Peers can remain in your Lordships' House with certain rights. I am sure that the Committee will not be surprised to hear me say that it is no more acceptable to the Government than were the others. I understand the proposal to be that the hereditary Peers should retain their right to sit but not to vote except on constitutional matters. However, those constitutional matters are not precisely or fully defined.
The noble Lord, in moving the amendment, referred to the Parliament Acts, but of course the amendment does not refer to those pieces of legislation. Clearly, the context of the amendment and the way it was introduced suggest that any additional rights given to hereditary Peers would include a Bill, any Bill, to give effect to stage two of reform of your Lordships' House. I am afraid to say to the Committee that all I can say is, "Here we are again". This is yet another proposal to delay the removal of the hereditary Peers so that they are present and able to vote in any way—although my suspicions are that they would vote against any proposal for further reform.
The noble Lord suggested that in some way hereditary Peers may be guardians in a particular form of the constitution. But in this House any individual Peer or groups of individual Peers would nit perform that role; it is the House as a whole which performs the role and function of guardian and peruser of the constitution. The House without the hereditary Peers will retain its same place in the constitution and in perusal of constitutional matters as now.
This amendment, like all the others along these lines, fails to address the fact that the Government see no justification for the principle of continued hereditary membership of your Lordships' House. As my noble friend Lord Williams said in reply to an earlier amendment some two or three hours ago, this simply will not do. It is no good noble Lords trying different permutations in the hope that eventually they will light on one to which the Government will say "Yes".
286
We have already indicated that the only amendment to which we are likely to give a favourable response—and that will of course depend on the nature and type of debate surrounding it—is the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. We have already indicated that that is one which we would look at with some degree of enthusiasm, but it is not contained in the amendment before us tonight. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it, and if he wishes to press it I would ask the Committee to reject it.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not think that the noble Baroness has given quite as much thought to her reply as I would have expected. I did not gain the impression from what the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. said that this is just an attempt to preserve the hereditary peerage in the House of Lords for a little longer. It goes rather deeper than that. This is about the powers of the House of Lords, and it is also about the nature of the interim House.
As I said earlier, in reply to a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, what we are talking about in the Bill is not the removal of the hereditary peerage; it is the creation of a House of patronage. Some noble Lords do not like that word, but that is what it is, because nobody will be a Member of the House unless it is as a resift of that patronage. Moreover, that patronage will be in the hands of the Prime Minister. No statement that the Prime Minister has made to date—if the noble Baroness wants to make a correction I shall be very happy to hear it—has indicated to me that he will not be able to control the total numbers coming to the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, was asking the noble Baroness whether she recognised that there is a danger in the fact that another place will therefore be able to control the membership of the House of Lords, and that very serious constitutional issues arise. The noble Baroness shakes her head, and I hope she will reply in a moment to tell me why that is not the case; I look forward to that. Is there not therefore a considerable danger that constitutional change will be able to go through the House with very little debate, because it has been controlled by the Prime Minister of the day?
The solution of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, is to retain hereditary Peers to deal specifically with constitutional issues. That may or may not be the right way. What I would like to tease out of the Government is whether they believe there is a case for having some form of special measure to deal with constitutional issues.
We have been down this road before. In 1911 it was decided that a septennial Act, as it was then, a quinquennial Act as it has now come to be known, which was clearly a constitutional safeguard, would not form part of the Parliament Act. I know that the Government have no intention of changing that, so they have already accepted that there is a role for the House in constitutional matters. All that I am asking is this: do they think that there is an extension of that, perhaps a threshold, for instance? I think that in. the Scottish Parliament there is a threshold for changing constitutional matters.

287
So again the Government have done some thinking on these matters, which I welcome; it is refreshing. If that is not the right solution, there may be others. This is an issue to which we shall have to return, and I would very much welcome hearing the thoughts of the noble Baroness on it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: As always, I am very much indebted to the noble Lord for raising these very interesting broad principles, which, I agree, may well form part of our discussions on the second stage of reform, or indeed on the reference to the Royal Commission. They are in no way contained in the amendment before us.
Lord Strathclyde: I apologise to the noble Baroness. I have no intention of straying into stage two. I would hope that stage two would solve these problems. I would hope that once the Labour Party has thought about these things it will come up with a solution. That is not what the Bill is creating. It is not creating stage two. It is creating an interim House. This is a matter of safeguards in the interim House. We are creating a House of patronage, entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister.
The question that I am putting to the noble Baroness—and I agree on stage two—is this: does she not think that there should be some greater safeguards to ensure that the untrammelled powers of the Prime Minister of the day should not be used against the interests of the country?
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am very ready to engage with the noble Lord in precisely such a discussion. He will recall the speech of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister last autumn when he said that he would reduce his individual powers of patronage which led to the very sensible and somewhat detailed proposals in the White Paper on the interim House which I am sure the noble Lord and other Members of the Committee have had an opportunity to study.
However, I cannot see anything in the amendment we are now considering that raises any of those issues. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, or the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, if he is championing this amendment as a broad constitutional issue, will be courteous enough to explain to the Committee the meaning of the second part of the amendment, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, as "other matters" and the words:
"pending the implementation of measures ensuring comprehensive reform of the House of Lords which maintain existing powers to control the Executive and such measures receiving Royal Assent".
Lord Strathclyde: I welcome the noble Baroness's affirmation that the Prime Minister is going to do something. But when will that be? Will it be before the passage of the Bill, before the end of the Session, at the start of the next Session or next year? The Prime Minister thinks that it is important, otherwise he would not have said that he is going to do something. I
288
presume that there has been discussion at the centre of government about which the noble Baroness will know and can inform the Committee. That would be welcome.
The amendment is one way of dealing with the issue of untrammelled powers. It may not be the solution. I merely ask whether the Government recognise that there is an issue here which needs to be resolved.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps I am not being entirely clear. I recognise that there are interesting issues which the noble Lord raises but in no way are they embraced by the amendment under consideration by the Committee.
Lord Harlech: I wish to address the Minister. There is a serious issue here in relation to the concept of a parliamentary democracy which is extremely important. It is happening now. What is being undermined is freedom of speech. As Nelson Mandela explained clearly to his own people and to the people of the world upon inauguration back into the Commonwealth, if you have institutions which are serious and keep a democracy in order you should keep in place those institutions and be very careful that you do not destroy them. I urge the Committee to read the speech: it is a good one.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I thank all those who have spoken in support of the amendment. I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. I should like to answer her question in part. I repeat the part of my speech in which I referred to existing powers to control the executive. I should say to the noble Baroness, while she is having a little giggle on the Front Bench. that she should listen to the public. It is the public who tell me that they are extremely disappointed that there does not seem to be any control over the executive exercised by another place. That is why I raised that issue. It was not to score brownie points.
The Front Bench of Her Majesty's Government should understand that I speak as an independent Peer. The Government are aiming to make sure that the independent Peers are retained in the House and would like it to have that independence. I am not here to delay the House. Our main role—it does not matter whether we are life or hereditary Peers—is to ensure that we ask the other place to think again and not to rush things. We do not wish to see the legislators trip up. We want to see things done correctly. I am not trying to waste time, as I am being accused of. I shall sit down but I ask Members of the Committee to bear in mind that I shall probably revisit this issue on Report having given everyone the opportunity of reading counsel's opinion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam moved Amendment No.18.
Page 1, line 5, after ("Lords") insert ("only")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.26, 64 and 153. Amendment No.26, which is the main one, cannot be

289
claimed to be a wrecking or delaying amendment. Indeed, it is not even anything to do with arcane construction in the legal sense. It throws a crumb, which I hope Members opposite will pick up.
In moving the amendment I am conscious that it goes against the grain of the feelings of those Members of the Committee who call for the elimination of all hereditary involvement in our Parliament. But Members will observe a caveat which provides a degree of democratic legitimacy to hereditary Peers; a legitimacy that is the cause. shall I say, of the resentment or perhaps disquiet that occasions the demands for our removal.
This House has been established as a House of hereditary Peers for some 750 years, maintained notably by the noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi and Lord Berkeley, from the opposite Benches, who, unfortunately, are not in their places. It is they and their fellows who have fashioned the principles and manners of our debate. The more recent appointees who have come to this House have come to learn, appreciate and uphold these ways and means. We, the hereditaries, are not to be rubbished into the dustbin of history. The Stalinist putsch is not by any means in the traditions of this House.
Without wishing to lecture noble Lords, perhaps I may say that these principles and manners are unique in that they are a matter not only of admiration and envy throughout the democratic world and in other legislative chambers; but are also regarded in amazement. I was expecting a roar of laughter at that. The amazement is in the understanding that they are manners that work well and better than in most political fora.
These are activities and advantages that the other place does not enjoy. If the reformed Chamber is to be elected, appointed or a mixture of both, it is important that such traditions are respected and protected. I suggest that a hereditary element should be preserved provided that that element can justify its democratic legitimacy. What better way is there of creating such democratic legitimacy than at the polls in the United Kingdom and in service in our political institutions as Amendment No.26 provides.
Seven years service will provide a double test at the polls and a sufficient degree of proficiency in the political field to enable Peers to make a worthwhile contribution to the debates in the Chamber both as politicians and as concerns their outside interests. Such will be necessary if they are to have sufficient income to perform their duties adequately and will, by definition, provide an expertise in the life of the country outside the somewhat incestuous life of politics. Hereditary Peers, as has been pointed out by noble Lords throughout the Chamber, have a varied and remarkable experience which is a source worthy of tapping.
A hereditary Peer will have the privilege only during his lifetime and it would be up to his or her heirs to prove their right in their own turn to gain the privilege under the amendment. Thus there will be in perpetuity the right of a hereditary Peer to qualify, sit and vote in the upper Chamber. I emphasise the word "qualify". That, I believe, would he a reasonable and proper remembrance and memorial to the service that we and our forebears have left to the British Parliament.
It may be objected that an unusual number of Peer; would be created who would seriously change the balance of the House. That could be a matter for the appointments commission.
There are several more pages to my speech. I should like to refer in particular to a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, at Second Reading. He voiced concern at the possible implication for the monarchy of the demise of the hereditary principle. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, assured us that Her Majesty is content with this Bill. Nevertheless, we have heard from many quarters that there is concern throughout the country that the Bill is the thin edge of the wedge prising the constitution apart towards a republic.
I need only refer to,
"Blairite think-tank wants to downgrade the Queen's foreigr. role".
which appeared in yesterday's Evening Standard to impress upon your Lordships the need for everybody in this Chamber to understand that there is a fear that this Bill will affect the legitimacy of the monarchy. Let us beware of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in our rush to complete the third way.
It is also evident that there is an element of the Weatherill amendment which indicates that there is a use for hereditary Peers, even though they will wittier on the vine. This amendment ensures that there w ill always be a place for hereditary Peers who can earn it and deserve it to sit, speak and vote in your Lordships' Chamber. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Although it is late, my noble friend has come forward with an ingenious amendment. The Government seemed to have only two objections to hereditary Peers. One was the numbers game; namely, that far too many hereditary Peers seem to end up, even if their forebears had been appointed by Labour governments, on the Conservative Benches. I suggested earlier that perhaps if more hereditary Peers sat on the Labour Benches we might not be having this Bill. But I detected from the body language on the Government Benches that I was perhaps wrong.
Perhaps it is the second point that irritates them; that is, a lack of democratic legitimacy. My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam has given the Government an opportunity to look at the possibility of retaining sonic hereditary Peers, but only those who have received democratic legitimacy by being elected Members, perhaps not of an elected second Chamber but of other elected bodies in the country. He listed them in his Amendment No.26.
The first is the House of Commons. Of course, there are no examples of that nature because currently no hereditary Peer can be elected to the House of Commons unless they renounce their Peerage. We are discussing the position on the assumption that this Bill passes and hereditary Peers no longer have a seat here and have a right to vote and stand for election to the House of Commons. In those circumstances there may well he somebody who is elected to the House of Commons who would therefore fall into the category of this amendment.

291
But there are Members of your Lordships' Chamber who are undoubtedly represented in the other groups. I wondered whether the amendment could be christened the Stockton amendment. My noble friend Lord Stockton is standing for the European Parliament and I confidently predict that he will be elected. My noble friends Lord Bethell and Lord Inglewood are also standing and I equally confidently predict that they will be elected. I can certainly do it in the case of my noble friend Lord Inglewood because he is in the happy position, given the ridiculous electoral system, that he does not have to do a hand's turn to be elected because he is number one on the list. I happen to know my noble friend is working very hard, but that is one of the consequences of the list system. It is only people like my noble friend Lord Stockton who is in what I think they call the cusp position in the list who has to do some solid work. If he succeeds, he gets elected; if he does not succeed in attracting a few more votes, he does not get elected.
I point that out as an aside to show how iniquitous the list system is. But your Lordships know it is iniquitous despite the votes we had on the subject. As I calculate, my noble friends Lord Stockton, Lord Bethell and Lord Inglewood will be elected to the European Parliament. If, after a couple of terms in that Parliament, they decide they have had enough or get dropped down the list, whatever may happen to the list system, and they leave the European Parliament, then they certainly have democratic legitimacy. In fact they will have more democratic legitimacy than many life Peers. They will have been elected for 10 years; that is more than many life Peers. They will have been elected for 10 years—for two five-year terms—and that is more than can be said for many life Peers. I only managed eight years in the other place. So the European Parliament is a good example in that respect. My noble friend Lord O'Hagan was a member of the European Parliament and is obviously a hereditary Member of this place. He was certainly elected democratically for the European Parliament and would fall within my noble friend's amendment.
As to the Scottish Parliament, I have already indicated that my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas, flying under his pre-title day, is even more confusing to most people because he inherited the title of the Earldom of Selkirk long after he became Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. Indeed, it has to be said that he was Lord James Douglas-Hamilton all the time that he was the Member of Parliament for Edinburgh West. He then inherited the Earldom of Selkirk, which he gave up. Unfortunately, the electorate then gave him up and he came here as Lord Selkirk of Douglas. However, my noble friend will end up in the Scottish Parliament. Some of us think that he ought to be the speaker of that parliament. Knowing his tenacity, I suspect that he will be elected to that parliament for a number of terms. Therefore, when he decides to retire from the Scottish Parliament, it seems to me that it would be reasonable to say that he had certainly been democratically elected and that he could resume his seat in your Lordships' House.
292
My noble friend Lord Sempill is also standing for the Scottish Parliament and the same argument holds for him. If he were to be elected for, say, a few terms, he would certainly have plenty of democratic legitimacy. To show that this is not just a Tory concern, I should point out to the Committee that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is standing for the Liberal Democrats. If he were to be elected for a couple of terms, it would be reasonable to claim that he had plenty of democratic legitimacy if he wanted to come here.
Members of the Committee may be pleased to know that I am not aware of any hereditary Peers who are thinking about standing for the Northern Ireland Assembly. Therefore, I am afraid that I shall just have to pass that by. Similarly, I do not believe that any hereditary Peers are standing for the Welsh Assembly, although I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, who is a life Peer, intends to do so. However, he would not fall under this provision.
We do not have regional assemblies in England; indeed, I doubt very much that we will ever have them. I believe that that is one of these little pies in the sky which get kicked about so as to keep the people happy and the West Lothian question at bay. The proposition of regional assemblies in England seems to me to show a total failure to understand the West Lothian question or, indeed, federal states. Nevertheless, we shall leave that to one side.
There is, of course, the new Greater London Authority. I imagine that some hereditary Peers—I know not who—may be standing in that respect. There is certainly a life Peer who is more than a little interested in leading the Greater London Authority as the elected mayor; namely, my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare. There are also many hereditary Members of your Lordships' House who serve on local authorities, some of whom have given a good deal more service than seven years. Indeed, some of them have given decades of serious and excellent service to local government. That probably applies to Members from all sides. They have been democratically elected time after time. It seems to me to be quite reasonable to suggest that, when they cease to be members of those bodies, they could come to this House.
My noble friend has been very generous in his amendment. He says that this provision should apply when people cease to be members of such bodies. I am afraid that I would have gone a good deal further and said that when they achieve seven years' service, even though they may continue to be members of such bodies, they may come here to give us the benefit of their wisdom and advice, derived from their membership of such democratically elected assemblies.
I could go on, but I shall resist the temptation to do so. In his amendments, I believe that my noble friend has actually lighted on a way which may help the Government to bring to this Chamber people who have democratic credibility and legitimacy and who come from a background of other democratically elected bodies in our country. Indeed, I think it is right to give some presence to those bodies in your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber. I certainly know that in any

293
discussion about local government, those of your Lordships who serve or have served in local government, as I did a long time ago, bring a good deal of knowledge to the debates; indeed, much more knowledge than people who have had no experience of local government.
Moreover, the same could be true of Members of the European Parliament. I think ex-Members of the European Parliament bring much wisdom and knowledge to your Lordships' House when matters European are discussed. I think my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam has a good point. I look forward to the Minister giving a sympathetic answer.
Lord Carter: The Committee should—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Carter: The Committee should know that Chief Whips are only allowed out after midnight.
In replying to Amendment No.18 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.26, 64 and 153. Amendment No.18 is a paving amendment for Amendment No.26. Amendments Nos.64 and 153 are consequential. As the noble Earl said, Amendment No.26 is at the heart of the group. The amendment seeks to allow hereditary Peers who have served for seven years in any of the bodies listed in the amendment to receive a Writ of Summons to sit and vote in the House of Lords. In the case of the House of Commons, any hereditary Peer elected to that Chamber will be entitled to a Writ of Summons on the day after he ceases to be an MP. This has the effect of ensuring that such a Peer who has been elected to the Commons and subsequently loses his or her seat in an election can continue to remain in the legislature by taking a seat in the second Chamber. Therefore it is proposed that a Peer who has been rejected by the electorate comes straight to the House of Lords. That seems to me a rather curious concept of the democratic legitimacy that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred to.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: I know the noble Lord will be glad that I am not talking about organic farming but the fact that the person concerned has done seven years' service in a relevant body is sufficient. The whole point of the amendment is that seven years' appropriate service is proof of democratic legitimacy.
Lord Carter: I am not sure that the noble Earl entirely understands his own amendment. It states that if a Peer has lost his seat in the House of Commons he immediately receives a Writ of Summons to come to the House of Lords. Therefore he has been rejected by the electorate but he comes to the House of Lords.
If a hereditary Peer is currently sitting in one of the eight bodies specified in the amendment, and has been for seven years, he will be able to continue in the Lords after this Bill is passed. I must point out that the amendment refers to a regional assembly in England, but that concept does not yet exist. Also the amendment is not clear as to whether the Peer will sit for life or for the duration of a parliament. The amendment refers to a
294
Writ of Summons which of course entitles the bearer to attendance for the duration of one parliament only. If it were for life, a Peer who had been a Member of the House of Commons could not seek re-election there. My speaking notes state that this amendment rather misses the point. After what I have just said, I think that that is rather a kindly way of looking at the amendment.
The Bill is designed to end the rights of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships' House. The Committee will not be surprised at that piece of information. That is not because we think they are all incapable of holding public office and that they should prove their worth in another elected body but because we do not accept as a matter of principle that in social, economic or any other terms the hereditary Peers can reasonably be considered to be representative of the people of the country as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrednish, says that the amendment is ingenious. Many years on the Opposition Front Bench have taught me that when someone uses the word "ingenious" he is a little bereft of argument. The noble Lord gave a long list of Peers in various legislatures. He displayed his knowledge of many colleagues. If I did not know the noble Lord better, I would say he was engaged in something of a filibuster.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If I had been engaged in something of a filibuster, I would have listed all Members of your Lordships' House who are members of local authorities and explained the work that they did. That would have taken a longer time because many Members of this Chamber are members of local authorities. Therefore the noble Lord should be cautious as regards accusing me of perhaps filibustering, because I can do so.
Lord Carter: Well, we all know that. That is why I said it was only something of a filibuster. I also noticed that the noble Lord carefully did not deal with the central weakness of the amendment which I have already pointed out. Allowing the bodies listed in this amendment to act as a kind of workplace where hereditary Peers can spend a seven-year apprenticeship before entering this Chamber is a rather curious approach to the parliamentary process. If hereditary Peers wish to continue in the public service and stand for election to another body, that is all well and good. But to suggest that once they have completed a seven-year stint they can then by right return to this place is unacceptable. Why does this amendment discriminate against all the others who have served in an elected Chamber for seven years? Why are hereditary Peers particularly selected for this process?
The amendment is defective in drafting; it is wrong in principle; it is bad in logic. I trust that the noble Earl will withdraw it.
Lord Harlech: It is of interest not merely to those of us in the Chamber at this late hour but to the country as a whole that the Minister and he who convenes this House is also in a position where he convenes agricultural workers, who provide food for this country.

295
That is important. My reason for referring briefly to this matter is that you cannot start to explain how you cannot do that that is on statute and still have an organised union. You must be careful as to whom you are organising, the union or the country. You must be very careful what you say.
Lord Carter: I refer the noble Lord to page 65 of the Companion to the Standing Orders, which clearly states that a debate must be relevant to the question before the House.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: I thank the noble Lord for his answer to my amendment. My introduction was curtailed. It was only six minutes. I threw away several pages of notes.
The object, which the noble Lord seems to have missed, was to retain an element of the hereditary principle. As I said, I know that noble Lords opposite do not like that principle, but I suggested a way whereby a small amount of that vital element should be retained as a memorial to the service of hereditary Peers in this House. I shall return to the matter at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers: moved Amendment No.19:
Page 1, line 5. leave out ("by virtue or) and insert ("because he holds")
The noble Earl said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos.68 and 155. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who will reply, that he need not be too worried and apply himself too hard, as he normally does, to the amendment. This is an exploratory amendment. It attempts to find out exactly what is meant. The three amendments deal with the same point. The phrase in the Bill is, "by virtue of". Clause 1 states that,
"No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage".
I do not know what "by virtue of means. I merely think that it is better to say, "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords because he holds a hereditary peerage". It is simpler and more understandable. "By virtue of seems to encompass something rather greater than "because he holds". I can give only one example, although it is not the reason for tabling the amendment. It could be said that my noble friend Lord Cranborne holds his position by virtue of a hereditary peerage even though he does not sit in this Chamber because he holds a hereditary peerage. The words may have been chosen deliberately to exclude my noble friend. If that is so, it is slightly ungenerous. I merely think it is easier to use the words, "because he holds"; then everyone knows where they are. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think the answer to the noble Earl's question is essentially contained in paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Notes. It indicates that,
296
"The exclusion from membership applies to all those who are members of the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage, including … any holder of a peerage by virtue of acceleration…and …any holder of a hereditary peerage by virtue of the termination of a peerage in abeyance".
We were looking for a proposition that was sufficiently flexible to cover direct and indirect relationships. "By virtue of achieves that. We chose a broad proposition in order to be sure that any Member of the House whose membership was in any way connected or related to hereditary peerages would have his membership of the House ended. I can confirm the thought that was in the mind of the noble Earl.
Earl Ferrers: Oh dear! Oh dear! I was holding out hopes that the noble Lord and the Government would be more generous. My noble friend is here by accelerated arrangement—whatever the description is—and came up by that route. Having been a Member of another place, he could have been made a life Peer. Had he been made a life Peer, he would have been continued; because he is here by accelerated promotion, he will be discontinued even though he is not an hereditary Peer. That seems to be a bit tough. The noble Lord can relax; I shall not dispute the matter any further. I do not say that I will not revisit the problem later, but I am grateful to him for explaining what I thought were rather complex words. I am glad to know that there is a reason for the complexity. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1 a.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No.20:
Page 1, line 5, leave out second ("a") and insert ("an")
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No.20, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.63, 122 and 156. This is a matter of very considerable importance. It is one of a scholastic nature, at which I am not particularly expert. One wonders why one puts "a" hereditary as opposed to "an" hereditary. One talks and writes about "an" hotel and it is a perfectly normal thing to do when the word "a" precedes the letter "h".
Being a prudent kind of fellow, I tried to find the correct way of dealing with this matter. I looked in the second edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage, which states:
"A is used before all consonants except silent h"—
Noble Lords: The "h" is silent.
Earl Ferrers: Noble Lords keep saying "silent"; I am speaking.
"(a history, an hour); an was formerly usual before an unaccented syllable beginning with h and is still often seen and heard (an historian, an hotel, an hysterical scene, an hereditary title, an habitual offender)".
That comes from Fowler's Modern English Usage. I defy even the Government to beat that. I suggest that "an" is a more appropriate word to use than "a". I beg to move.
Lord Henley: As the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip has made a guest appearance, I wonder whether I can make a brief guest appearance. I moved a similar though slightly different semantic amendment on a Home Office Bill with which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was dealing. He accepted the semantic point I was making on that occasion. I wonder whether he will accept the semantic point being made by the noble Earl on this occasion?
Lord Newby: This is one of the most important issues we have discussed today. As part of my preparation for the debate I, too, looked up the usage of the words. I looked in Collins Dictionary which said that "an'' was formerly often used before words that began with "h" and are unstressed on the first syllable. In British English this usage is now obsolescent. I could not believe that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, would indulge in obsolescent usage. I was therefore extremely surprised that he tabled the amendment. He rather condemned himself out of his own mouth because in his first speech this afternoon he talked about a singular hereditary Peer and he used the phrase "a hereditary Peer". It seems to me that he is more in tune with Collins Dictionary than with Fowler's. This amendment is ill thought through and, in view of his own repudiation of the usage earlier today, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Northesk: Perhaps I may make one brief point. I am gratified to note that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has spent a fair part of today's debate keeping count of how many times my noble friend Lord Ferrers used "a" as opposed to "an".
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I, too, studied Fowler's Modern English Usage— the second edition. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, knows perfectly well that one always ought to give a full citation. He and I were both brought up to do that. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said:
"A is used before all consonants, except silent h (a history, an (lour): an was formerly usual before an unaccented syllable beginning with h and is still often seen and heard (an historian …an hereditary title.) But now that the h in such words is pronounced the distinction has become anomalous and will no doubt disappear in time".
We do not want to overthrow precedents in this House. The phrase "a hereditary peerage"is to be found in the Peerage Act of 1963 and the Parliament (No.2) Bill of 1968—I mention that for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—which was the last attempt at reforming your Lordships' House. The Parliament Act 1911 in its preamble speaks of a second Chamber constituted on "a" popular instead of hereditary basis.
If the noble Earl had asked me for my personal opinion, I would have sided with him on the basis that one does not want to rush forward too quickly in altering the ways of pronunciation. Some people say "an"hereditary Peer. In fact the noble Earl was not as astute as always because on an earlier amendment I did myself fall into the gross error of saying "an" hereditary Peer but I hastily corrected myself so that he should not catch me.
298
In all the circumstances, particularly as I am responsible for the amendment—the single word "but"—in the Government of Wales Bill, I think we ought to stick to "a" on this occasion. But it is a point to which we probably ought to return at Report stage and Third Reading!
Lord Goodhart: In view of the reference to something that is "anomalous and will no doubt disappear in time", does the noble Lord accept that "an" hereditary Peer is peculiarly appropriate?
Earl Ferrers: I was interested in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Newby. The trouble is that he read the wrong book. If he had read Fowler's instead of Collins he would have come to a different conclusion. I was also fascinated that he should have done me the courtesy of counting whether I had used "a" or "an". It is perfectly true that I used "a", because when in Rome one does as the Romans do. The Bill uses ''a". But I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, used "an" and I thought, "Hooray, hurrah, now here is a person who will accept my perfectly modest amendment". The noble Lord was generous enough to say that in his heart of hearts he would side with me. I suggest that he does side with me. This is a fairly important matter. The noble Lord continued with the quotation from Fowler's Modern English Usage that:
"But now that the h in such words is pronounced the distinction has become anomalous and will no doubt disappear in time".
That is speculative. The fact is that it is not anomalous at the moment and it suggests that "an" is the correct word, as the noble Lord incidentally and inadvertently used himself. This is an important matter. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
1.9 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.2.0) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 63.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Annaly, L.

Iveagh, E.

Bemers, B.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Bumham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Byford, B.

Miller of Hendon. B.

Chesham, L.

Monson, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mountevans, L.

Clinton, L.

Norrie, L.

Coleraine, L.

Northesk, E.

Coleridge, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

EdenofWinton, L.

Stockton, E.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Trefgame, L. [Teller]

Gray, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Weir, V.

Henley, L.

299

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Addington, L.

Hayman, B.

Ahmed, L

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Alli, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Amos, B.

Hoyle, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bach, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy

Blackstone, B.

Seel.]

Bragg, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Burlison, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Carlisle, E.

[Teller.]

Carter, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Chandos V

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Crawley, B.

Newby, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

DaviesofCoity, L

Pitkeathley. B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

RendellofBabergh, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Richard, L.

Desai, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Donoughue, L.

Sawyer, L.

Dubs, L.

Simon, V.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Goodhart, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Thornton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Whitty. L.

Hacking, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hardie, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
1.18 a.m.
[Amendments Nos.21 to 23 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

HFC Bank Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past one o'clock.

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary
  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary
  Currency Movements: Effect of War in Former Yugoslavia
  Currency Movements: Effect of War in Former Yugoslavia
  English Tourism Council
  English Tourism Council
  EU: Forthcoming Business
  EU: Forthcoming Business
  Prisoners: Annual Cost per Adult Male
  Prisoners: Annual Cost per Adult Male
  Life Sentence Prisoners:Release
  Life Sentence Prisoners:Release
  Bridges Project
  Bridges Project
  Human Rights: Public Authorities and Compensation
  Human Rights: Public Authorities and Compensation
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man: External Relations
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man: External Relations
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man and the EU
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man and the EU
  Gibraltar: European Parliament
  Gibraltar: European Parliament
  Abnormal Load Movement
  Abnormal Load Movement
  Cemmaes "B" Windfarm
  Cemmaes "B" Windfarm
  Armed Forces: Medical Posts of Consultant Status
  Armed Forces: Medical Posts of Consultant Status
  Iraq: Airspace
  Iraq: Airspace
  Millennium Volunteers Programme
  Millennium Volunteers Programme
  Vaccine Damage Compensation Scheme
  Vaccine Damage Compensation Scheme
  Housing Benefit: Help with Mortgage Interest
  Housing Benefit: Help with Mortgage Interest
  EU Legislation: End-of-life Electronic Equipment
  EU Legislation: End-of-life Electronic Equipment
  EU Structural Fund Status
  EU Structural Fund Status
  WTO Adjudications
  WTO Adjudications
  WTO: Rejection of Import Bans
  WTO: Rejection of Import Bans
  WTO: Appointment of Technical Experts
  WTO: Appointment of Technical Experts
  WTO Rules: Decisions Taken on the Basis of Science
  WTO Rules: Decisions Taken on the Basis of Science
  Electronic Trading Document: Response Time
  Electronic Trading Document: Response Time
  A.40: Reduction of Speed Limit
  A.40: Reduction of Speed Limit
  Railway Signalling Infrastructure: Hesketh Report
  Railway Signalling Infrastructure: Hesketh Report
  Local Government Bill: Compliance Costs
  Local Government Bill: Compliance Costs