Sitting of 29 April 1999

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

    General Teaching Council
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: When the General Teaching Council will be operational; and if he will make a statement on its introduction. [81514]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): From September 2000, the General Teaching Council for England will be the new professional body for teachers. For the first time, teachers will have a real role in regulating their profession, and we expect that the GTC will quickly become a key player in shaping the education service of the future. The Government are committed to revitalising teaching as a leading profession, and the GTC is a powerful symbol of our drive towards achieving that. The first election to the GTC is expected to take place in spring 2000.
    Mr. Coaker: Is my hon. Friend aware of quite how much teachers welcome the establishment of the General Teaching Council? They have long wanted a professional body that is able to represent their interests and articulate their views on a wide range of education issues. Will he confirm that part of the Government's drive towards addressing education issues is to re-establish the teaching profession's morale, which is so essential if we are to raise education standards in our schools?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: the reform is long overdue and should have been made decades ago. It is also a very important step in establishing and strengthening the status and standing of the teaching profession in the community as a whole, and in ensuring that professional standards run right through our education system. I am absolutely delighted that this Government have put the reform on the statute book and will bring it into effect. It will have a profound effect on classroom morale.
    Mrs. Theresa May: The Minister is well aware of our concerns about the General Teaching Council, and the fact that it is not the body that it needs to be if it is to encourage more people to join the teaching
    458
    profession. We are also concerned about the extreme control that the Secretary of State has over members of the General Teaching Council—is not that yet another example of the way in which the Government seek to control from the centre, rather than allowing teachers and the profession to make decisions for themselves?
    Given the recently released figures showing that the Government will yet again miss the teacher recruitment target—which the Government reduced, despite the fact that there are still 10,000 teacher vacancies in our schools—when will they accept the real classroom crisis of teaching recruitment and do something about it?
    Mr. Clarke: It is a little rich for the hon. Lady to make that point, given that for 18 years the previous Government did absolutely nothing to address those issues. Although I am glad that she has given her general support, her remarks were a bit rich.
    I defend the role of the Secretary of State in nominating members to the General Teaching Council on two important grounds. First, there is a public interest in regulation of the teaching profession. It is right that there should be such an interest, and it should be expressed by the Secretary of State in nominating people to the council. Secondly, the Secretary of State's nominations will give real flexibility to the council as it begins to evolve. In the regulations, we specify the Secretary of State's specific responsibility to take account of the needs of parents and of children with special educational needs. I believe that those are very important developments in ensuring that the General Teaching Council will evolve into what we wish it to be—an effective, strong and independent representative of the profession.
    The Green Paper, the GTC initiative and all our other specific initiatives and measures —on science and on maths, for example—are designed to tackle teacher recruitment. It would be very refreshing if the hon. Lady gave us some support in those initiatives, rather than simply seeking to niggle from the sidelines, as she so consistently does.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that until the profession unites into a council, it will never achieve its full potential? Will he say that he intends urgently to press on and attempt to knock some sense into the profession?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have said on a number of occasions, and I believe it to be the case, that the divided representation of the teaching trade unions damages the profession. I hope that the General Teaching Council will play a role in unifying and strengthening the profession's role in the provision of education, which is why I think that establishing the council is such an important step. I am glad to have his support.

    Test Results
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement about the inclusion of information about (a) average class sizes and (b) money spent per pupil in

    459
    future published tables of test results at ages 11 and 14; and if he will publish such results and information for tests at age seven. [81516]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I have been trying to work out from which wing of the Conservative party this question comes.
    We currently have no plans to increase further the amount of statistical data and information published in performance tables. However, I should—under pressure, of course, from the hon. Gentleman—be prepared to publish details of the pupil-teacher ratios and the rise in the number of children being taught in classes of over 30 pupils in the last 10 years of the previous Government.
    Dr. Lewis: May I reassure the Secretary of State that, like all my questions, this one comes from the mainstream of the Conservative party? Does he accept that there are three main probable causes of the inadequacy of primary school pupils turned out into secondary education—first, the inadequate sums being spent; secondly, there are too many children per class; and, thirdly, rotten teaching methods? Does he accept that, until we publish data on class sizes and amounts spent per pupil, it will be impossible to tell whether the first two causes are behind inadequate results at the primary level, or whether the cause is really, as I suspect, rotten teaching methods?
    Mr. Blunkett: From that, I deduce that the question came from the absolute denial wing of the Conservative party. Yes, there was an £80 per pupil drop in spending under the Conservatives. Yes, there will be a £235 per pupil increase under this Government in their first term in office. Yes, there was a continuing worsening of the pupil-teacher ratio; yes, we have already reversed that, and, for the first time in 10 years, primary pupil-teacher ratios have improved. We have managed to get 130,000 infant children into classes of fewer than 30 in the first year that we embarked on the attempt. Yes, of course, rotten teaching methods make a difference—which is why we are always glad to receive the odd moment of support from the Conservative party for the literacy and numeracy strategies that they did not introduce.
    Mr. David Willetts: What does the Secretary of State say to the school that I visited last week, which because of the rigid implementation of the class size policy is having to turn away pupils whose parents want them educated there? Because funding is allocated per capita, the school is losing money too, and because it is losing money it will have to lose teaching assistants, so there will be fewer adults per class. Everybody is losing because of the rigid implementation of the policy. Many schools throughout the country are trapped in that way. What does the Secretary of State say to them?
    Mr. Blunkett: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman visit schools among the majority that have discovered that with the investment that we have made already in the reduction of class sizes, there are 2,700 extra teachers and 600 extra classrooms. That has allowed us to accommodate a further 12,000 parental preferences for schools under admissions pressure such as the one that he has described. In other words, we are reducing the number of children in classes of more than 30 at the same time as we are expanding
    460
    preference and increasing the number of classrooms and teachers. That is the exact reverse of what the Conservative Government achieved in their 18 years in power.
    Mr. Ian Cawsey: If he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to improve standards of achievement in further and higher education. [81517]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): The Government have shown by word and deed their determination to improve standards of achievement in both further and higher education. In further education, we established a standards fund of £35 million this year, and £80 million next year. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education is developing new methods of ensuring rigorous and comparable standards in higher education.
    Mr. Cawsey: I wish my hon. Friend well in his endeavours, and I am looking forward to his visit to my constituency tomorrow. Does he accept that the need to drive up standards in the post-16 sector should be met by adequate and fair funding? Is he aware that studies by the National Audit Office and others have shown that, in my area, for instance, John Leggott sixth form college, which enjoys a national reputation for the standards achieved by its comprehensive intake, has funding 30 per cent. lower than the sixth form of the Queen Elizabeth school in Gainsborough, which is a selective grammar school? Will he use his good offices to look into the figures and ensure that all schools in the post-16 sector get fair allocation of resources, to achieve the higher standards that he wants to put in place?
    Mr. Mudie: I am indeed looking forward to my visit to sunny Scunny, as we call it in Yorkshire. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating John Leggott sixth form college, which has a deserved national reputation for its excellence. His remarks must be set against the November settlement announced by the Secretary of State, which put an additional £725 million into the further education sector. None the less, I am aware, as is the rest of the House, of the specific point that he made. We recognise that the system that we inherited from the previous Government has its inequalities, and that is one matter that may fall to be dealt with under the post-16 review.
    Mr. Phil Willis: It is the first time I have heard Scunthorpe described as sunny Scunny, but I will take the Minister's word for it. The Liberal Democrats support the Government's attempts to drive up standards in further and higher education, but does the Minister accept that it is also important to meet the access targets? Does he also accept that the disastrous introduction of tuition fees has meant a decline in the number of applicants to higher education, including a 28 per cent. decrease in the number of mature applicants? Is it not time for the Government to abandon the Prime Minister's target of 500,000 extra students by the end of this Parliament?
    Mr. Mudie: I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman's figures. I shall give the House some interesting figures. In 1994, the number of applications

    461
    for home undergraduate places was 2.3 million. In 1996, long before tuition fees, the number was down to 1.753 million. For 1998, the figure was 1.791 million. The 1997 figure was higher because the loans system gave mature students an opportunity to apply, and 1997 was an exceptional year compared to the trend for 1994–98. If the figure for 1997 is removed, the number of applications rose in 1998.
    Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Given that the public standing of universities, and Consequent league tables, tend to be based on research excellence and research funding—I do not wish to argue with that important focus—does my hon. Friend feel that the universities are striking the right balance between research reputation and high-quality teaching? Does he agree that we need to do far more to drive up teaching standards in our universities, in an age when more of our young people are going to university from a variety of backgrounds and tuition fees have to be paid?
    Mr. Mudie: As my hon. Friend will be aware, we have put an additional £1.4 billion into research, but we are aware of the need to keep a balance. As my original answer accepts, we are always keen to improve standards and we are aware of the need to work with the higher education sector to keep improving teaching standards.
    Mr. Damian Green: I am delighted to hear that the Minister will visit John Leggott college, but I have to tell the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) that when I was last in Scunthorpe visiting the college it poured with rain, so the town may not live up to the Minister's advertisement for it.
    In the context of the post-16 review, the Minister mentioned the great concern about the inequality of funding between different types of sixth form institution. Can he give a guarantee to school sixth forms that none of them will be closed as a result of the post-16 review against the wishes of local parents, teachers and education authorities?
    Mr. Mudie: I shall certainly give that guarantee unequivocally. Sixth forms have an important part to play, alongside further education colleges and sixth form colleges. Anything in the post-16 review that did not build on sixth forms or, especially in the inner cities, failed to strengthen, improve and expand them would be strongly opposed by the Government.

    Child Care
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What progress has been made in increasing the number of out-of-school child care places. [81518]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): The national child care strategy continues to make a major impact locally. I am delighted to say that since April 1998 we have funded the creation of more than 61,000 new child care places, exceeding our target for that year. Indeed, in the first two years of this Labour Government, we have created more new child care places than the previous Government created in their 18 miserable years in office.
    Mr. Cunningham: I welcome that statement, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister realises that this is
    462
    an important matter, both nationally and in Coventry. Will she give the general figures for Coventry, and the particular figures for my constituency of Coventry, South?
    Ms Hodge: I shall be delighted to do so. The figures available so far for Coventry in 1998–99 show that 266 new child care places have been created, in clubs such the All Saints club and the Pilgrim club, and in colleges such as Henley college and Coventry city college. Moreover, my Department has just given full approval to Coventry's plans for next year, under which the intention is to create a further 893 new child care places. Funding has also been received for 1,384 new nursery places for three-year-olds, starting in September.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am most interested in the Minister's reply. I recently visited some pre-schools in my constituency—the Jolly Tots and the St. Paul's pre-schools in Poynton—and I am due to visit one or two more in the near future. Will the Minister say why the Pre-School Learning Alliance is so concerned about the large number of pre-school closures, of which there have been about 1,500 recently? Another 1,700 are scheduled to close over the next year.
    I am very interested in this sector of education, as I believe that children's experiences at that early age can dictate what happens in their subsequent educational career. Will the Minister comment, and explain why the Pre-School Learning Alliance is so worried, and why so many pre-schools are closing?
    Ms Hodge: I am delighted to be able to do so. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for a long time, and will have been here when the previous Government introduced the disastrous nursery voucher scheme. That, more than anything else, was responsible for damaging the pre-school sector, both private and voluntary, in this country.
    We are most concerned that the Pre-School Learning Alliance and the pre-school movement in general should play a full part in the expansion of early education and child care places. That is why we have provided £500,000, both this year and last year, to help pre-schools in financial difficulties. We have also established a review to see how we can ensure that the pre-schools play a full part in the expansion of early years education and child care. That review is due to report to me in August.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am pleased that the Government recognise the importance of, and the need for, pre-school education. Will she say how groups in my constituency that are eager to provide the service should go about receiving Government support for their endeavours? Can she assure me that the Government will continue to support pre-school groups, in my constituency and in the Wakefield area in general, to help them to continue the very important service that they provide to many families?
    Ms Hodge: We have established in each education area an early years child care and development partnership. That is the context in which we hope that plans will be developed in every locality to respond to the needs and preferences of parents and children and to implement the expansion that we want. We are anxious that every sector should contribute to the expansion of early years

    463
    education and child care. We have placed a duty on those partnerships to ensure the health of both the voluntary and private sectors, and therefore to ensure their continued and sustained contribution.
    Mr. David Willetts: The Minister did not address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). The Pre-School Learning Alliance has specifically identified as part of the problem:
    "Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership arrangements created by the present Government."
    The Government are driving diversity out of the system, and many parents do not believe that a state primary school is the best form of provision for their four-year-old child. Pre-School Learning Alliance places are closing, and 1,700 of them are in danger this year. Free-standing specialist nursery schools are also in danger of closing. Is it not the case that merely talking about reviews does nothing to address the serious problems that other forms of pre-school provision face?
    Ms Hodge: The hon. Gentleman is well known for his views on parental choice. It is, therefore, completely hypocritical of him to stand at the Dispatch Box denying parental choice and blaming parents for choosing one setting as opposed to another for their child.
    The previous Government's nursery voucher scheme began the massive threat to and decline of pre-schools. This Government, in both our years in office, have put £500,000 into support for pre-schools, and, with the support of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, have set up a review, not to find out why pre-schools are declining but to see how they can contribute to the expansion of early years education and child care places.

    Housing Costs (Students)
    Dr. Lynne Jones: What discussions he has had with the Secretaries of State for Social Security and Environment, Transport and the Regions about help with housing costs for students. [81520]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): My Secretary of State is in regular and continuing contact with colleagues on issues relating to student support. The Government will take steps to support students in the greatest need as and when opportunities arise. For students in higher education, help with housing costs is provided in grants and loans through the student support system. Help for students who have financial difficulties is also available from the access funds of their institutions.
    Dr. Jones: Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues consider the plight of my constituent, Susan, who is on a 16-hour-a-week access to health studies course? She is caught by the 16-hour rule, which makes her ineligible for housing benefit. She is also ineligible for more than a small amount of access funding. She works as many hours as she can as a care assistant, but her income is still insufficient to meet her £45-a-week rent in full. Surely the system should do more to help people such as Susan to get out of low pay and benefit dependency and into worthwhile careers such as nursing.
    Mr. Mudie: I am aware of the case raised by my hon. Friend. No matter how flexible the system is, however,
    464
    there will always be individuals or groups with particular circumstances that it does not address. The Secretary of State is continually aware of that problem, and we constantly move to try to help individuals or vulnerable groups when particular cases arise.
    For the individual concerned in this case, the immediate answer would be her institution's access and hardship funds. The amount that she has received from the institution is insufficient, but there is a possible solution, which I should like to discuss further with my hon. Friend. The course concerned is an access course that does not usually give any support to the student. It is a pre-statutory service—I hope hon. Members understand what I mean by that. We might, therefore, discuss with the institution involved why the course does not take 15¾ hours, as that would open housing and other benefits to the student concerned. Why 16 has been chosen as the magic number of hours is an interesting point, particularly when it comes to access funds.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: The Minister will be aware that many students live in houses in multiple occupation. The Government's recent Green Paper on HMOs exempted university accommodation from inspection. However, universities are getting rid of more and more of their own accommodation. Does that not mean that more and more students will be at risk in HMOs?
    Mr. Mudie: The hon. Gentleman may not know this, but I believe that an all-party parliamentary group is conducting a dialogue with the Minister for Local Government and Housing and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. A policy document or a White Paper on multiple occupation will be issued soon because it is a particular worry. The question whether universities will be included is a matter for discussion, consultation and decision. I am delighted that individual Members with strong university bases in their constituency have raised this because it is a growing problem that affects localities and even relationships in cities where universities have great numbers of students.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: May I share with my hon. Friend the experience that I had this week of meeting a young woman called Hazel who is leaving care to go into higher education? Not only has she shown tremendous intelligence to get herself qualifications and tremendous resilience to battle through the disadvantages of a disrupted life and a number of years in care, but she has shown the supreme good judgment to go to Lancaster university on a social work course. Does my hon. Friend agree that help with housing costs is essential if we are to help ever more bright young people cast off the disadvantages of being in care and make it into higher education?
    Mr. Mudie: I do not think that there is a Member in the House who would disagree with my hon. Friend. Hazel indeed deserves congratulations. Her achievement in gaining a university place is no mean feat, given the normal background of a youngster in care. I know that my Secretary of State is particularly concerned about that group. All hon. Members, to be fair, would welcome my

    465
    hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health's moves to help youngsters leaving care. The attention given to youngsters leaving care was greatly welcomed and long overdue and it is a wonderful example of this House responding to something which has been a disgrace for years.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I have experienced personally the deep sorrow that a family in my constituency had when their daughter, a student living away from home, died from carbon monoxide poisoning. Does the Minister agree that in principle no public funding for housing costs should be awarded to students or others living in a property, whether in multiple or single occupancy, where health and safety checks have not been carried out?
    Mr. Mudie: This matter will be dealt with by the DETR White Paper, and deservedly so. The hon. Gentleman has raised the case from one perspective. The other perspective concerns how youngsters are treated and the conditions in which they have to live in many university towns. The hon. Gentleman's remarks have a resonance which we hope will be reflected in the White Paper.

    Post-devolution Funding
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: When he will next meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to discuss post—devolution funding arrangements. [81521]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I have regular meetings with members of the CVCP and last met them on 17 March 1999. They have made no approaches to me on this particular topic, but obviously I would be happy see them, as ever.
    Mr. Dalyell: What reflection does the Secretary of State have on the evidence, to which I have drawn his Department's attention, from the CVCP and the Scottish universities to the committee under Sir George Quigley reviewing the fee anomaly and on the part that that anomaly might play in attracting fewer students to Scottish universities from England and Wales? Is the downturn of 18.4 per cent. registered by St. Andrews university to be expected by other Scottish universities? Both Heriot-Watt university and Edinburgh university are worried.
    Mr. Blunkett: The figures published on Tuesday by the higher education statistics agency showed that we must compare like with like. Although there was a downturn in the number of students applying last year to Scottish universities from England, the number registered as taking up places for the current academic year rose by 3 per cent. Although there was a downturn in those entering in the first year, there was an upturn in those entering later, in the second year of four-year courses. Enrolment, as opposed to applications, was up. That is encouraging, both for Scottish universities and for the new system. I was encouraged when I was in Scotland yesterday to learn that the university with the largest number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, Paisley, had had an upturn in applications for the coming year.

    Capital Allocation (Schools)
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: What has been the total increased capital allocation to schools in Hendon since May 1997. [81522]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): Schools in Hendon have benefited from approximately £2.31 million of grant under the new deal for schools and to remove outside toilets. Nine schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have benefited. Both initiatives were launched by this Government after May 1997.
    Mr. Dismore: May I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and say how much not only I, but the children at the schools affected welcome the additional funds? I recently visited Deansbrook school, which welcomes the announcement because it will no longer have to put up with old huts, but will have a brand new building. St. Vincent's primary school welcomes it because it can now merge on to one site instead of using a split site with a main road through the middle. Copthall school welcomes it because it will get a brand new building. That is excellent news for my constituency and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his announcement
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am finding it difficult to think of some controversy to generate. The truth is that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have appreciated the support that we have been able to give in capital spending to schools in their constituencies. Many schools that have been waiting for decades for resources to be spent on improving them are beginning to get them. There is much more to be done, but I believe that we are going down the right path.

    New Deal for Schools
    Mr. Harry Barnes: What representations he has received concerning the outcome of the new deal for schools: capital programme phase 3. [81523]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): Since the announcement of successful projects under the new deal for schools, the Department has received many representations from hon. Members, local education authorities and schools, including one from my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Barnes: I appreciate that everything cannot be funded at once, especially the provision of new schools. Derbyshire has had resources allocated to build a new school at Swadlincote. In my constituency, the Holymoorside school needs to be replaced. I encourage the Minister to examine our proposals. I hope that he will visit the school because it is vital that provision be made for it in next year's allocation. Derbyshire has many

    467
    problems with the state of its schools and a strong case can be made for this one, although we realise that it was stuck behind another application.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend understands the situation fully and argued a powerful case for Holymoorside school. I am prepared to visit it to see for myself the conditions about which he is concerned.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): What a man!
    Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend is right. Hon. Members may be interested to learn that under phase 3 of the new deal for schools, the amount per pupil paid for Derbyshire was greater than for any other shire county except one. It had a good settlement, but I am acutely aware of my hon. Friend's points.
    Mr. John Bercow: Can the Minister confirm that only 1,053 out of 5,909 bids under phase 3 of the new deal for schools have been successful? As Allan Shaw county school in Steeple Claydon and Chackmore school in my constituency have had their bids rejected by him, can he confirm that where health and safety considerations are involved, special priority will be attached to bids by the schools in question?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's confirmation of the terrible backlog in school spending that we have inherited. I repeat that, although we are making good progress, we are the first to recognise that there is a long way to go to deal with the problems. I have received representations from the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the two schools that he mentioned. He wrote to me and I wrote back with a full answer. I am speaking from memory, but I think that the schools were not given sufficiently high priority by the LEA to be given a grant. He is right about health and safety. It is the first consideration in the new deal for school spending and the first criterion under which LEAs submit their bids.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: I spent 25 years in classrooms before I entered the House, the last of which was spent teaching in a portakabin. I wonder whether hon. Members realise how dispiriting it is for children and teachers to have their lessons in sheds that are too hot in summer and too cold in winter. I welcome the effect that the new deal capital programme is having in my constituency. It is making a start on taking out the 18-year inheritance from the Conservative party of terrible portakabin classrooms, especially at Carlton Colville primary school and Warren special school. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking to continue the work of ridding this country of these horrible classrooms? They are wrongly referred to as mobiles, as they rarely move, but they are on the move now.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right; he has highlighted an important point. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have given priority to the new deal for schools precisely because, unlike other capital allocation processes, it focuses on dilapidation and serious problems of the type that my hon. Friend describes, and health and safety, to which the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)
    468
    referred, among other issues. The new deal programme focuses on ridding this country of the terrible backlog of 18 years of Conservative neglect.
    Mr. David Heath: When the Minister is reviewing the new deal for schools, will he reflect on two things? One is the proliferation of bidding processes, which Labour decried in opposition, and the other is the massive scale of the problem of temporary classrooms referred to by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard). There are 800 so-called temporary classrooms in Somerset, which represent a huge inefficiency in terms of cost and the teaching environment. It is a massive problem which needs to be addressed with huge resources to provide the sort of teaching accommodation that we want for our children.
    Mr. Clarke: We are addressing the problem with huge resources—far more, I may say, than the penny on income tax that the hon. Gentleman's party has suggested. We acknowledge that there is a massive amount to be done, and we are doing it. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about the bidding process, but that is why we are asking LEAs to introduce asset management plans. We are funding the process precisely to achieve the most efficient local assessment of needs, management of capital and all the rest of it, so that the bidding process becomes less important. We will have a better system as a result of that and of the Government's commitment.

    University Research
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: In what ways the additional funding for research announced in the comprehensive spending review will be used by the universities. [81524]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): The substantial investment in research announced as a result of the CSR, totalling some £1.4 billion over three years, will allow research in universities to be transformed. It will allow for institutions to invest in the modern equipment and infrastructure needed to maintain the United Kingdom's world-class science base.
    Mrs. Campbell: The additional money is welcome after 18 years of miserable Tory neglect. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that universities, such as Cambridge, that already have a world-beating record in research will benefit from the extra money? When will an announcement be made about the allocation of funds as a result of the joint infrastructure fund bid?
    Mr. Mudie: I thank my hon. Friend for accompanying me during my visit to her constituency this week, and for introducing me to so many committed professionals who are delivering such an excellent service to the people of Cambridge.
    In answer to her question, the university of Cambridge has already received £3 million for the Babraham Institute and there will be a decision about the other funds in May.

    Further and Higher Education
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What was the percentage of school leavers going on to further or higher education in the local authority areas with the (a) lowest and (b) highest percentages in the most recent year for which figures are available. [81525]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): In 1996–97—the latest year for which figures are available—the proportion of 16-year-olds participating in education was lowest in Salford at 57 per cent. and highest in Kingston-upon-Thames at 97 per cent. Unfortunately, information on school leavers entering higher education is not available by local authority area.
    Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will know that, in places such as Burnley, the number of school leavers going on to further and, ultimately, higher education is much lower than the national average, and that there are repercussions for towns where there is a lower than average take-up of education at the higher levels. How well does my hon. Friend think that the Government's initiatives to encourage more people throughout the country to go on to further and higher education are working? Does he propose to take any further action to encourage more people to take up those forms of education?
    Mr. Mudie: The dual objectives at the centre of the Government's education and training policy are to raise the competitiveness of the British economy through increasing the skills base of the work force, and to end social exclusion. My hon. Friend should take heart and realise that the problems faced by the youngsters in his constituency are a central feature of our objectives. Without taking up too much time, I should like to run through some initiatives.
    Learning partnerships are very much at the centre of the battle to improve standards; we are bringing together training and enterprise councils, local government careers services and further education. We are setting local targets and persuading people, by every possible means, to reach the objective of increasing numbers. We are in the second year of the new start scheme, whereby schools, careers services and further education colleges are attempting to bring vocational education into schools for 14 to 17-year-olds. There is retargeting in the careers service so that it can work more closely with individuals who are in danger of falling out of the system. That is working extremely well. We have introduced legislation to ensure that there is a right to time off for study for 16 and 17-year-olds who have not reached an acceptable educational level. Without straining your patience too far, Madam Speaker, briefly, those are some of the things that we are doing.
    Mr. William Cash: Does the Minister accept that the percentages relating to school leavers depend on what has been going on in the schools? Is he aware that a local Staffordshire newspaper unequivocally stated, "Our schools betrayed", next to a picture of the Prime Minister? Does that not demonstrate that local newspapers and, indeed, local people are profoundly concerned, in the run-up to the local elections, about the way in which schools have been betrayed by this Government? Is the
    470
    Minister aware that the standard spending assessment in Staffordshire is a complete disgrace, and that there is no reasonable comparison between what is going on there and in other counties, such as Hertfordshire?
    Is the Minister also aware that there has been a Cabinet decision—in which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment were intimately involved—which means that there will be no changes whatever in the SSA for the next three years, and that that is admitted by the Department for Education and Employment? A Cabinet decision has been made for which the Government are responsible—they have betrayed our schools.
    Mr. Mudie: It is a delight to hear the hon. Gentleman talking about something that is not Europe-based. I have been a Member of the House for several years and saw how the previous Government operated. The Labour Government are the first Government to approach post-16 education with the understanding that what happens to youngsters at the age of six months relates to where they will be at the age of 16.
    We are struggling to deal with the problems of the post-16 age group: there are 5 million people in the community who have no basic skills, and 7 million without accreditation in the work force. Through the work of my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards, we have put together an integrated set of policies targeted on improving standards in schools, so that the post-16 problems do not exist because we have dealt with the disease, not the symptoms.

    Learning Mentors
    Valerie Davey: If he will make a statement on his proposals for the use of and access to learning mentors. [81528]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): From September 1999, each secondary school pupil in six inner-city areas will have access to learning mentors. Learning mentors will devote the majority of their time to the children who need extra support to realise their full potential. We shall agree the detailed arrangements for deploying mentors with the relevant local education authorities, in partnership with their schools.
    Valerie Davey: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that a voluntary mentoring scheme for those leaving care is proving to be of great value in the Bristol area. Given the importance of that scheme, will all the schools in the six areas be encouraged to take up mentoring schemes?
    Ms Morris: I pay tribute to the voluntary mentoring scheme to which my hon. Friend refers. From travelling throughout the country, it is clear to me what a huge impact the voluntary schemes are having. I should like to take this opportunity to emphasise that the initiative we have launched to employ mentors to support some of the most disadvantaged children and so ensure that they get a decent education will do nothing to detract from the contribution that the voluntary sector makes to mentoring. In fact, one of the duties given to mentors on their

    471
    appointment will be to make sure that they co-ordinate with voluntary mentoring and work with schools to raise standards even further.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Minister knows that, as part of their new deal for employment, the Government have appointed employment advisers who, to a great extent carry out mentoring in respect of education. Is she upset—as all of us should be—that, since the new deal was introduced, in every quarter, the number of unemployed people in the 18 to 24 age group has gone up? Is it not time that the Government carefully examined mentoring in respect of getting people into educational courses? Perhaps people are being ill advised and are not getting jobs at the end of the process.
    Ms Morris: I only wish that the hon. Gentleman had benefited from the numeracy hour; if he had, he might have realised that youth unemployment has gone down by a third since the introduction of the new deal. The work we are doing to provide mentors, not only for those who, having left school, are trying to enter employment and training, but for those who are still at school, will ensure that children and adults who are at a point in their life when they have to make key decisions are at last given the high-quality advice and support that they need to ensure that they have access to the life opportunities that have so far been denied to far too many people.

    Age Diversity
    Ms Linda Perham: When he plans to launch the code of practice on age diversity in employment; and what responses he has had to the draft code. [81529]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): I am pleased to say that the code will be launched next month. Its launch will be a great tribute to my hon. Friend's Employment (Age Discrimination in Advertisements) Bill and to other hon. Members who have also campaigned with such energy on this important issue.
    We received 356 responses to the consultation: respondents found the code generally useful, clear and relevant. There were suggestions for improvements which, as far as possible, we are incorporating.
    Ms Perham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I congratulate the Government on their action to launch the code on age diversity in employment. It is one of several measures relating to older people that the Labour Government have taken—far more than the Conservative Government managed. I understand that the code will be monitored and fully evaluated by February 2001. If we are not satisfied with progress by then, will the Government consider legislation on age discrimination, perhaps in the next Parliament?
    Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome for the code. I believe that it will make a difference in spreading good practice, in helping to change attitudes and in challenging outdated assumptions. As she says, it will be closely monitored and carefully evaluated. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in a
    472
    written answer on 15 December, the impact of the code will be evaluated and that will inform future plans for legislation in that area.

    Employment Harmonisation (EU)
    Mr. John Wilkinson: When he last discussed with the European Commission the harmonisation of policies to stimulate employment within the EU. [81530]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): Ministers have regular discussions with the European Commission and other member states, and we are making good progress through the employment guidelines on active labour market policies to promote employability and to combine flexibility with security. However, that progress is being achieved through co-operation, not harmonisation. Employment policy and employment action plans remain the responsibility of individual member states.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Are the Government aware that the harmonisation of value added tax on the importation of works of art from outside the European Union will effectively double the rate of VAT on those works and will gravely damage the London art market? Far from encouraging employment, it will destroy jobs in London and throughout the country. What do the Government intend to do about that? Will they ignore the proposal and just accept it blithely, or make a stand for British jobs and the prosperity of the British people?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman should know that the Government have made vigorous representations in the interests of the British art market. We want to sustain the jobs and the commanding competitiveness that that market enjoys. The employment guidelines to which I referred earlier explicitly include—at the behest of the United Kingdom—the requirement that every regulation be examined to gauge its effect on employment levels. Moreover, we will promote adaptability, flexibility, equal opportunities and entrepreneurship in employment policy. We want to sustain that entrepreneurship in the British art market of which we are so proud.
    Mr. Colin Breed: Will co-operation, or the harmonisation or co-ordination of employment policies across Europe, have any effect—good or bad—on the new deal?
    Mr. Smith: The employment guidelines promote an active approach to the labour market which guarantees young people who have been out of work for six months the help that they need through an adviser, training programmes and assistance into employment. The good news is that that approach is being extended to other countries. I have received an enormous amount of interest, not just from Europe, but from countries throughout the world, in the achievements of the new deal.
    In answer to the accusations that Opposition Members made earlier today, youth unemployment among the eligible group has fallen by more than a third since the new deal was introduced. We have the lowest long-term youth unemployment in this country for 20 years, and we are

    473
    proud of the fact that the Labour Government have reduced long-term youth unemployment further in 18 months than the previous Government managed in 18 years.

    Education Action Zones
    Mr. Bill Rammell: If he will make a statement on the number of bids received for education action zone status in the latest round. [81531]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received 123 applications, which come from every region in England.
    Mr. Rammell: Does the Minister agree that the key benefit of an education action zone is not just the additional money that it brings— although that is welcome—but the fact that it brings parents, teachers and the public and private sectors together to boost educational achievement? That has been my experience in working with schools in Harlow to produce a bid. Will my hon. Friend look carefully at Harlow's bid, which is unique in involving the local cable television network to increase access to the internet? By linking it to schools, it will engage parents more meaningfully in their children's education.
    Ms Morris: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. Of course the money allocated to education action zones is welcome but, more importantly, the zones are levers for the sort of partnership that we have not seen in our education service for the past 18 years. When education partners in the community work together, the children in our schools will benefit. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he and his colleagues have done in Harlow. He is correct to say that the bid is unique in using cable
    474
    television, but he can imagine the number of requests that I have received from hon. Friends asking me to look carefully at their bids. I assure both him and them that I will do so.

    Early Years Education
    Ms Julia Drown: What steps have been taken to support early years education and quality child care through pre-schools and playgroups. [81532]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): I am delighted to put on record the Government's support for pre-schools in the expansion of early years education and quality child care. Pre-schools and playgroups contribute to good quality early education and child care through local early years development and child care plans. The Government have recently announced up to £500,000 in grants to support good pre-schools and playgroups in temporary financial difficulty, and an independent review to identify any barriers that prevent pre-schools and playgroups from developing their role.
    Ms Drown: My constituents welcome the Government's investment in early years education. However, pre-schools and playgroups still have to fund-raise and apply for lottery grants to improve their services. Will my hon. Friend assure my constituents that the Government's commitment to improving child care and early years provision will continue as long as they are in power?
    Ms Hodge: The answer, clearly, is yes. We hope that the pre-school movement will be able to play its part in ensuring that every child in this country gets the best possible start to their educational experience.

Fiona Jones
Madam Speaker: The House may care to know that it is my understanding that the divisional court has decided that following Fiona Jones's successful appeal against her conviction, the Newark seat is not vacant. If further details of the divisional court's decision are received which add significantly to what I have said, of course I will make a further statement at a convenient time.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 MAY—Bank Holiday.
TUESDAY 4 MAY—Until about midnight, progress on remaining stages of the Greater London Authority Bill.
WEDNESDAY 5 MAY—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Conclusion of remaining stages of the Greater London Authority Bill.
THURSDAY 6 MAY—There will be a debate on modernising London's health service on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 7 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 10 MAY—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill.
TUESDAY 11 MAY—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 12 MAY—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill.
THURSDAY 13 MAY—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 14 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the end of business on Thursday 27 May and return on Tuesday 8 June.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the business for the following week.
As the NATO action in Yugoslavia may last for some time, will the Leader of the House reflect on how the House may be kept in the picture in the weeks ahead? We have had debates and statements, which we very much welcome, but they have tended to be somewhat random. I do not press the right hon. Lady for an answer now, but the House will want regular opportunities to be kept informed, possibly on a weekly basis.
Will the debates that the right hon. Lady has announced on Northern Ireland give the House an opportunity to be informed on the progress of the talks?
Next week, will the Leader of the House ensure that the disagreement between Ministers as to who is responsible for lifting the beef ban in Wales is resolved? On a point of order yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) drew attention to conflicting statements from two Ministers, one of whom said that

477
responsibility had been devolved to the Assembly, while the other said that it had not. As the Welsh people go to the polls, can they be clear as to what powers the body that they are voting for may have?
I make no apologies for asking yet again for a debate on Lords reform. I very much hope that the Leader of the House can tell us that it will happen soon.
On 11 May, hon. Members will be tabling questions to Scottish Office Ministers for answer on 25 May. Will the right hon. Lady tell us who will be answering those questions, as the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that it will not be him?
Finally, while we welcome the dates of the Whitsun recess, will the Leader of the House confirm whether the House will be sitting on the date of the European elections?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point about the arrangements for handling reporting back to the House on events in Kosovo. Although I appreciate his recognition that the Government have tried very hard to keep the House informed, he is right that it has been on a somewhat ad hoc basis. As all of us recognise that the NATO action may continue for some time, there is much merit in considering how we might keep the House updated and properly informed. That seems to me to be exactly the type of matter that requires careful consideration through the usual channels, and I shall be happy to take that forward and try to reach agreement on how we do so.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about progress on the talks being raised in the context of the Northern Ireland debates. I recognise that that is a serious point, and that people may well wish to allude to that subject. As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is a matter as much for Madam Speaker and for the Chair as for me. These subjects may well come up in the debate, but the legislation is a grave and serious matter, to which the House will wish to give proper and full attention.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to provide time for a discussion on a contradiction that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) thought he had identified. I fear that I must disappoint him. Not only can I not find time for such a discussion, but it is totally unnecessary. The hon. Member for Woodspring seems to have overlooked the fact that when my noble Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn gave the initial answer, in a debate in June 1998, policy discussions on the handling of functions covered by the Food Safety Act 1990 were still under way, and those matters had not been decided. Since then, naturally, they have been decided. It is a matter for which responsibility is transferred, so the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was therefore entirely correct.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on Lords reform. We are conscious of the wish to hold a debate on the White Paper. We are seeking a suitable date, which I hope will be before the Whitsun recess, but the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, for reasons that we mentioned earlier in relation to Kosovo and so on, I cannot make any promises.
With regard to Scottish questions, the appropriate Minister will answer, quite naturally.
I can confirm that the House will be sitting on 10 June. I understand that that is not unusual. The House has always sat on the date of European elections, with the one
478
exception of the most recent European elections in June 1994, when the previous Government, at what they must have hoped would turn out to be the nadir of their popularity, hoped to avoid further parliamentary scrutiny and embarrassment by ensuring that the House did not sit.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is there not merit in the Government tabling a substantive motion on the Kosovo situation—a motion which some of us might well wish to use to challenge the whole basis of the current on-going strategy, which is leading to a Vietnam-like situation? In particular, will there be a statement on why there has been a change of policy on the substantive bombing of Montenegro, a question of which I have given my right hon. Friend notice? How can we do this to Mr. Djukanovic, who has been a friend of the west, and what is the likely effect of bombing Montenegro in relation to any development of Yugoslavia in a peaceful situation?
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that the Government's view on the issue of a substantive motion on those matters has not changed. As the point has been raised several times in the House, I have looked more carefully into the background, and I understand that a combination of the exercise of the royal prerogative and of the approach that has been taken that this is partly a common law matter, has led successive Governments, literally through the generations, to take the view that these matters are not decided by a substantive motion in the House. At present, the Government do not intend to change that policy.
My hon. Friend asked me—and I am grateful to him for giving me notice—to clarify the reasons for what he described as a change of policy on Montenegro. There has not been a change of policy. The Government support the elected Government of President Djukanovic, but, as I hope and expect the Montenegrin Government recognise, there are facilities in Montenegro that are of value to the Serb military machine, and NATO has sought to undermine those facilities.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I urge the Leader of the House to arrange an early statement on the urgent issue of the new trade war that seems to be about to break out on the issue of the import of hormone-treated beef to the European Union and the United Kingdom? It seems that the EU is being rather more effective in defending the interests and health of consumers in this country—and, indeed, British farmers—than the Government. An urgent statement is certainly necessary as this is a matter of considerable concern. The overnight news is that the situation is deteriorating fast.
The Leader of the House has previously said that she intends to arrange for a debate in the House on charging for entry to this building. The Administration Committee report is being published this week, so will the Commission be examining this matter and making a recommendation to the House before that debate takes place? Can the debate take place before the Whitsun recess?
In particular, will the right hon. Lady undertake that the Commission will look hard at the economics of the proposal? It seems to many Members, on both sides of the House, that those economics will stack up only if there is charging not for two months in the summer, but through 12 months—but that would amount to a creeping

479
privatisation of the way in which visits to the House take place and considerable charges would inevitably be incurred by our constituents if the proposal were carried through. The House staff would be excluded from taking people round the building and considerable security issues would arise. Can we be reassured that the Commission will look hard at what looks like the thin end of a damaging wedge?
Mrs. Beckett: I did not hear any overnight reports of a change in the situation on hormone-treated beef, but it is ludicrous to suggest that the EU has been more effective in defending consumers' interests than the Government, who certainly give the highest possible priority to those interests. I should be sorry to learn of anything that is contributing to a new trade war, because we certainly want good trade relations between the EU and the United States, but these things bubble to the surface from time to time and have to be dealt with.
The hon. Gentleman asked about charging for entry to this place. He is right that the report has been published and it is anticipated that the Commission will consider the matter. We have not yet considered it, so I cannot tell him whether the Commission will make a recommendation; it may not. On the only occasion on which the matter was discussed by the Commission, all members took the view that this is very much a matter for the House. The economics are clearly the kind of thing that the House would want to take into account.
I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate before the Whitsun recess, but I can certainly say that it is my understanding that the impact of such issues as security—which he mentioned and which would of course be discussed—on the further opening up of the House has led to the proposal to consider charging. Let us not forget that this proposal concerns providing greater access, not less.
It has never been intended that Members would be charged. for taking parties of constituents around the House. I am not a member of the Administration Committee, and am in no way privy to its discussions or bound by its decisions, but, in fairness, it is only right for me to say to the hon. Gentleman and the House that precisely for those reasons, and not because the Committee is in any way advocating creeping privatisation, that the Committee has put these proposals to the House. The House may or may not decide to concur with the Committee's recommendation, but we must respect the seriousness of the concerns that it has identified.
Mr. David Winnick: Would it be possible for the BBC's special "Panorama" programme on the atrocities in Kosovo to be shown in the House—in particular, to critics of what is happening?
May I also raise a domestic matter? Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on the public financing of essential services? Such a debate would give Members, especially Conservative Members, an opportunity to express their views. That would be better than all the hole-in-corner discussions in the Corridors, the rumours, the leaks, the sackings—and, of course, the undermining
480
of the position of the Leader of the Opposition. A debate would allow us to air the differences in a proper way, in the Chamber of the House of Commons.
Mrs. Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting suggestion. I understand his wish for the "Panorama" programme to be readily available to Members, and I think that he will find that it and other programmes are available through the Library. I hope that hon. Members will take advantage of that service. As for my hon. Friend's proposal for a debate on the public financing of essential services, I think that such a debate would be very interesting, although most of us would hardly need to attend; the Conservative party could hold the debate on its own. As we are offering Conservative Members opposition time, they may wish to take up my hon. Friend's suggestion.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Is the Leader of the House aware of the conflict, in the week including 10 May, between discussion of all stages of the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill and a visit to the United States by 11 members of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which was arranged several months ago? That coincidence will give rise to a considerable conflict of loyalties among Committee members representing both Northern Ireland constituencies and constituencies in Great Britain. It would be very unfortunate if we could not take a balanced Committee to America.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, and also for the terms and the tone in which he did so. I was not aware of the conflict, but I agree that it is most unfortunate. Obviously, I cannot deal with the matter now, but the business that I announced for the second week is, of course, provisional. I am well aware of the concerns that led to the wish for a debate on the Bill to take place as soon as possible, and as concurrently as possible with what the Irish Government are doing; but I agree that the clash of events is very unfortunate. All I can suggest is that we try to encourage discussions between all involved as a matter of urgency, to establish whether the matter can be resolved in any way.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to NATO's new strategic concepts, which foreshadow considerable commitments of one kind or another. They may raise issues relating to the amendment of the NATO treaty, as well as defence and budgetary issues. May we have a debate as soon as possible, so that Members' views on a matter of profound significance for the future can be heard?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and worthwhile point. I cannot promise to find time for a special debate focusing solely on that issue, but I can tell him that we are very mindful of the fact that we are committed to arranging three defence debates each year. As he will know, we now have a new structure for those debates. One matter that we have not yet debated is the overall issue of defence in the world. We hope to find

481
time for that debate in the not too distant future, and when it comes along the issue raised by my hon. Friend will be very pertinent.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House may know that the people of Omagh, who have suffered from bombing, are keen to open their town and their community to Kosovar refugees in sympathy, but that is on a long finger. Could that be explained, and, at the same time, could the Home Secretary come to the House to tell us whether any attempts have been made to deal with what some of us consider to be an anomaly in the new legislation dealing with European elections? Under that legislation, a person could spend £5,000 to influence the election of a candidate—or, indeed, an objection to that candidate —without any sort of regulation. I feel that we are getting into a dangerous position with our own electoral laws.
Mrs. Beckett: All of us recognise and honour the generosity of the people of Omagh in their willingness to welcome Kosovo refugees. The Government's approach has been to work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to identify the people who are the highest priority cases in needing, for some particular reason, to come to the United Kingdom and who wish to come here. One piece of information that has continually been reinforced by all who talk to the refugees is that by far the majority of them want to return to their homes as soon as possible and to stay in the vicinity of Kosovo. The families of many of them are divided and they are anxious about relatives. I am sure that there is no wish to reject the generosity and good will of the people of Omagh, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
I am not familiar with the anomaly to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his second point. I shall also draw those remarks to the attention of the Home Secretary.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Last Monday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a substantial statement on his visit to Washington for the NATO summit, and I understand that most of the questioning turned on the issue of Kosovo. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House make time for a serious debate on the future of NATO, and in particular the changes in the NATO structure that were agreed at Washington and the possible changes in the NATO treaty? Notwithstanding what she said to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), would this matter be covered by the royal prerogative or would there be a substantive vote on the Floor of the House on any changes in the NATO treaty? Clearly, they would have long-term implications for British foreign policy and our relationships with the United Nations
Mrs. Beckett: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), we are committed to a number of defence debates, which may provide an opportunity to raise these issues. We have Defence questions on 10 May if my hon. Friend wants to probe Government—from what he said, he does—on the immediate aftermath of the NATO summit.
On my hon. Friend's further question about whether this decision has to be on a substantive motion or can be done by royal prerogative, my inclination is that it is the
482
second of the two, but I have not had the chance to give much thought to the matter. If I come to a different conclusion, I shall write to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Eric Forth: Can we have an urgent debate to inform and, I hope, reassure the people of this country about the continuity of public services over the millennium period? The Leader of the House may be aware that there is speculation and anxiety about the fact that some people and some trade unions in the public services are making disturbing threatening noises about the unavailability of key public services, not least health, over the millennium period. Is she aware of that, and does she accept that it is of the greatest urgency that this matter is debated in the House, in the hope of getting an absolute guarantee from the Government that there is no question but that public services will be continued over the millennium period?
Mrs. Beckett: It is unlikely that we can find time for a special debate on that matter. The right hon. Gentleman says that there is anxiety, but it is a bit late now for there to be anxiety about the delivery of services when planning for the continuous delivery of services without interruption should have started at least five years ago, if not more. I am not making a party political point—although I will if the right hon. Gentleman starts to press me. I am merely making the point that everyone who deals with the issue now recognises that to be the case. The more closely the matter is studied, the more apparent it becomes that the ramifications are far greater than people first anticipated when they began to plan for the millennium.
As for the speculation, I am aware of pressure within some of the services. The heads of services have responsibility for ensuring that they are delivered sensibly and without interruption. Everyone is working hard to achieve that, and there has been proper contingency planning should some unforeseen events take place, which is likely to happen over such an unusually long holiday. As for me giving an absolute guarantee, I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that Conservative Members frequently quote reports from the organisation that advised the Conservative Government, TaskForce 2000, and its most recent report is riddled with what are to my mind helpful references to the fact that no one can give absolute guarantees about anything, and that only someone very unwise would ask them to do so.
Mr. Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend is no doubt aware that today is "take your daughters to work" day. Will she join with me in congratulating the tens of thousands of young girls who are taking the opportunity to go with their mothers and fathers to workplaces throughout the country, including the House of Commons, to see the work that their parents do? Will she also arrange for an early debate on the matter, so that we may discuss how not only girls but boys might gain more work experience and a better understanding of the world of work? It is important for the future that all our young people should have a better understanding of that world.
Mrs. Beckett: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in welcoming this day, and in congratulating those who are participating in it, particularly those who, like his own

483
daughter, are participating in it in the House. I cannot promise him an early debate on the matter, but I can certainly wholeheartedly endorse—as the whole House will—his view that there is much that is worthwhile in young people having work experience, so that they may begin to see what it is that—we hope—their parents find interesting and attractive in their work, besides the salary that they draw at the end of the month.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the number of times that we have been able to discuss Kosovo. Although I wholly endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, it is worth acknowledging that we have had plenty of opportunities for such debate. However, we have not yet had an opportunity to debate the very real difficulties—which will be enormous and complex, and have to be discussed in the House—of how, when Milosevic has accepted the inevitable, we go about reconstructing Kosovo, with all the attendant disastrous consequences that we shall have to deal with then. Will she try to find time for what would be a very important debate, bearing in mind that it concerns not only the Foreign Office, but almost every Department of State?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his acknowledgement of the time that the Government have found for such debate. I share —as I am sure that the whole House will—his recognition both of the importance of reconstruction in Kosovo and of the fact that the matter requires most careful consideration. Although I cannot promise him now that I shall find time for a special debate, I assure him that, when discussions are held on how the House should continue to be informed and to debate those matters, we shall consider exactly those types of issue. I am grateful to him for reminding us of that.
Angela Smith: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 558, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner)?
[That this House deplores the action of Pizza Hut, which, in its opposition to the national minimum wage, has cut funds for late night taxi services for its staff, many of whom are under 18 years and some of whom work as late as 1.00 am; considers such action prejudicial to the welfare and safety of Pizza Hut staff; and urges the company to reconsider its position.]
Many hon. Members think that withdrawing that benefit demonstrates a callous disregard for loyal staff who work late at night, and that it is certainly against the spirit of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. May we have an urgent debate on the matter, so that we may discuss not only employers who are working against the national minimum wage and treating their staff in that manner, but employers who have welcomed the national minimum wage and a re ensuring that it succeeds?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although I do not feel that, at the Dispatch Box, I can be drawn into the affairs of a specific company, I understand the anxiety that my hon. Friend expresses. It is not the first time, and I suspect that it will not be the last, that employers have prayed in aid the existence—or even
484
the possibility of—the minimum wage as an excuse for doing something that they chose to do for reasons of their own. That may well apply in this case.
It is a matter of contract law, rather than the handling of the minimum wage itself. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will know—I am happy to remind people—that there is a national minimum wage helpline for those who believe that they are being unfairly disadvantaged. There is also a local office of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service that employees may contact, and I hope that they are doing so.
Mr. John Hayes: Given the rather disturbing answer that the Leader of the House gave earlier to the shadow Leader of the House, on the rights of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to lift the beef-on-the-bone ban, will she arrange for an urgent statement on the issue? Hon. Members will realise that it is entirely feasible that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly might lift the ban, whereas the House of Commons does not, thereby putting English farmers at a competitive disadvantage. Moreover, Scots Members of this House could vote against lifting the ban in England, which would cause concern and distress to farmers across the whole of this nation. An urgent statement is therefore required to reassure them that a Government whom they already feel are badly letting them down will not let them down even further.
Mrs. Beckett: I know nothing disturbing about those arrangements, and those to whom they come as a surprise cannot have been awake while we were debating the Welsh and Scottish devolution Bills. I am happy to say that it is not my problem. Moreover, the idea that English farmers will be at a disadvantage assumes that they are incapable of selling into Wales and Scotland, which I would have thought was a slur that they would not be happy to hear.
It is clear that, as the Government have said repeatedly, any decision made on the matter must be on the basis of scientific advice. That has always been, and will continue to be, the Government's stance, and we all hope that the scientific advice will soon give us clarity.
Mr. Derek Twigg: Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate on the economy, especially as under Labour we have the lowest mortgage rate for 30 years, inflation is under control and £40 billion is being spent on education and the health service? Will she consider a debate specifically about that £40 billion, because in discussing the Finance Bill this week, the shadow Chancellor said that his party supports our investment of £40 billion in health and education—but if we read the papers or listen to the news, we realise that there is a split in the Conservative party on that subject, and that such statements seem to cause problems? Should we not consider the matter? Is it not true that the Tories cannot be trusted on our public services?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a sensible suggestion, but I fear I cannot help him with his proposal for a special debate. As he will be aware, we have debated the Finance Bill this week but, inexplicably, the Opposition chose to ignore the facts to which he has drawn attention—the low mortgage rate, low inflation and

485
the substantial investment in our public services. I understand his wish to remedy the defects in the Conservatives' choice of issues to debate, but I fear that I cannot find extra time.
As for whether the Opposition now support the investment in our public services, over the past few weeks I have heard the shadow Chancellor and others in the Conservative party saying sometimes that it was wild extravagance and sometimes that they supported it—and also that perhaps they did not support a change of direction. The Conservative party's position is far from clear, but I do not think that a debate would help us, because the party seems to have a split personality on the subject.
Mr. Norman Baker: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a short statement on the worrying incident that occurred at Stansted airport, in which a package of highly dangerous iridium weighing 200 lb was discovered lying there, having been "lost in the post"? Had it been opened, it could have killed thousands of people. If she makes a statement, will she be able to explain why the package, having been lost between the United States of America and Mexico and having ended up at Stansted, lay undiscovered for 10 days; what steps the Government are taking to investigate the matter, whether the package was carried on a passenger airliner, and what the Government are doing to reduce the movement of radioactive material in general?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman says that the material was discovered "lying there". My understanding is that it was "lying" in a safe radioactive storage area, which is not quite the same thing. It was not exactly on a baggage trolley. Of course, I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's concern about such material being untraced, but I cannot offer him an early statement on the subject.
This morning, I had the advantage of hearing part of the hon. Gentleman's interview on the radio, in which he called for a reduction in the movement of radioactive materials. Of course I understand his fears—public safety is a high priority for the Government—but if one were waiting to be treated with radioactive isotopes, or were concerned about the safety of something that was being investigated using radioactive trace techniques, one might be less sympathetic to the notion that such material should not be transported anywhere.
Maria Eagle: Can my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate—next week, I hope—on that part of the £21 billion that the Government are spending on the national health service that will restore free eye tests for pensioners from this month? The Conservatives abolished those during their reign, and it would seem appropriate for both sides of the House to have the opportunity to accept that that was wrong, while alerting many of our constituents, including almost 19,000 people in my constituency, to the fact that they can now go down to their optician and have a free eye test.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right, and I regret that I cannot promise time for such a debate, especially as it is important—as she rightly says—that pensioners understand that their right to free eye tests has been reinstated. There was much concern in the House at the time of abolition, even in the Conservative party, about
486
the health consequences of that move. It has been damaging, and I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who have reversed it.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I ask the Leader of the House for a debate on the plight of those people on low incomes who have worked hard all their lives and are approaching retirement? They have been considerably disadvantaged by this Government's changes to the tax structure, including the abolition of MIRAS and the married couples allowance, the increase in national insurance for the self-employed and the rise in the cost of living caused by increases in petrol duty. Such people have worked hard all their lives on low incomes and may have saved a little, but they have no time left to build up their pensions. They can expect to retire on a lower pension not only because they have earned less in the past few years, but because of the tax changes to pensions.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot offer a further debate on the matter other than the ones we have already had on the Finance Bill. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the wrong person. I shadowed social security for five years, during which time the Government whom he was proud to support did more than any Government in living memory to devastate the pension provision, the safety net and all the services that underpin support for pensioners, especially those on low incomes.
Sir George Young: Come on!
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman keeps saying "Come on". Business questions do not exist solely for the Opposition to have a go at the Government: the Government can have a go back.
Mr. Harry Barnes: If everything has gone to plan, a plane containing refugees from Kosovo recently landed at East Midlands airport. The refugees will be taken to Leicestershire and to a part of north-east Derbyshire in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) —who will, I understand, soon be back with us and will be a solid representative of the refugees' needs. Can we have a debate specifically about the problems of refugees from Kosovo, both those who are in the countries around Kosovo and those who have been transferred to other areas? People have different views on how the refugee situation should be handled and what facilities should be available. It would be valuable if the House had a debate on the needs of the refugees, rather than another debate on the NATO bombing and the background to the situation.
Mrs. Beckett: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's concerns. Like him, I have heard the reports that some of the refugees will go to north-east Derbyshire. I cannot promise to find time in the near future for a specific debate on the issue of refugees, but I can assure him that the Government keep those concerns under review and will continue to discuss them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development made a statement on 21 March on the issue and we will continue to keep the House informed.

487
I share my hon. Friend's view that the matter will be kept under review by the powerful and beady eye of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The Chamber is not the same without him and I am sure that all hon. Members wish him a speedy return.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement by the Home Secretary on the work of the Passport Agency? My constituents face delays of weeks and months in the return of their passports when they have made new passport applications. That serious situation especially affects families who now have to get passports for their children. I understand that since 25 March all passport applications have been diverted to Belfast because of the overload of the mainland system. Will she bring the Home Secretary to the House to explain the work of the agency and the measures that will be taken to rectify the problems?
Mrs. Beckett: I think that the whole House—and certainly all hon. Members whose constituencies include a substantial population from the ethnic minority communities—will be aware of how great are the difficulties being experienced by the Passport Agency and of their serious effect on the service available to people. I am not promising to bring my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the House in the near future to give an explanation, partly because it is a problem—a difficult and thorny one—which we inherited and are trying to resolve.
However, it is typical of IT problems that no one is willing to predict accurately when they will be sorted out. All I can say is that an enormous amount of work is being undertaken to try and resolve the matter. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to hon. Members—or will do so in the near future—to give them as much information as he can. As things stand, we can only do what we can to alleviate the worst of the difficulties and hope that proper service is resumed soon.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: If it turns out that my right hon. Friend has been unsuccessful in persuading the Opposition to hold a debate on public services, will she reconsider the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)? My right hon. Friend will be aware of the speculation last weekend that Michael Portillo, the former Member for Enfield, Southgate, may seek the Conservative nomination in my constituency of Harrow, West at the next election. Will she seek an assurance, through the usual channels, that Mr. Portillo's campaign for that nomination will not be blocked by the Leader of the Opposition?
Mrs. Beckett: I had seen some of those reports, and I think that many Conservative Members—not just the present Leader of the Opposition but the contenders for that post as well—will be both interested and alarmed to learn of the plans of the former Member for Enfield, Southgate to seek a return to the House. However, I fear that, even with the enticing prospect that we might further expose the divisions in the Conservative party, I still cannot find time for a debate.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a statement to be made early
488
next week by the Minister for Sport, so that he can explain his remark about underachievers in the Scottish football team? He said that the team was the West Ham of world football and urged it to throw in its lot with the England team so that a United Kingdom side could take the field. If possible, can we have such a statement before Thursday?
Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport. I fear that it is unlikely that I can arrange for a statement to be made before Thursday, but I rather suspect, for good or ill, that if the hon. Gentleman were to press my hon. Friend on the matter he may find my hon. Friend only too willing to explain his views.
Mr. Phil Hope: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the new campaign on agency workers launched this week by the Trades Union Congress? The campaign has the support of two reputable employment agencies, Manpower and Adecco, which are keen to promote the existing legal rights against rogue agencies and the new rights being introduced by the Employment Relations Bill. A telephone hotline is to be made available so that people can find out what their rights are, and a debate would give the House an opportunity to consider the merits of a European directive on establishing employment status and rights for all temporary workers in the European Union.
Mrs. Beckett: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view that the TUC's aim of improving standards in the industry is to be welcomed, and I very much welcome the campaign. There is much talk about the flexible labour market in this country, and it can be of advantage to both employers and employees, but decent standards must be observed. Good employers who try to do a sensible job and supply the needs of the employment market are let down if standards are undermined by rogue agencies. I hope that all hon. Members will support the campaign, which I hope will be successful. However, I fear that I cannot find time for a debate on the matter soon.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Apparently well-founded reports suggest that nursery schools and pre-school playgroups have been closing at a rate of two or three a week. The matter was raised at Education and Employment questions this morning, but the Under-Secretary of State dodged it. The question also came up in Prime Minister's questions yesterday, and the Prime Minister flatly denied that the closures were taking place. Will the Leader of the House therefore find time for a statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, so that we can get to the bottom of the matter and find out the truth about the harm being done to nursery education by the Government's policies?
Mrs. Beckett: I did not hear what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said this morning, but I did hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday, and I fear that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) must have misheard him. The Prime Minister said that the Government were making further investment in nursery education and that such facilities were being made more widely available.
The position clearly varies in different parts of the country, but I suspect that part of the reason for the concerns aired by some Conservative Members is that as

489
the Government have put substantial investment into providing additional nursery places through public funds, that investment may be reducing the need for some privately provided places.
Obviously, there are differences in provision, but that does not necessarily mean that there is less provision, and it certainly does not necessarily mean that provision is of a less high standard. Both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment were quite right to contradict any Conservative Member who said that nursery provision was declining under the Government. It is increasing; what is changing is how it is provided.
Mr. Bill Rammell: Will the Leader of the House organise an early debate on the single currency? I ask that for the particular benefit of the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who, on Radio 4's "Today" programme yesterday, was diverted from his normal tirade against Europe into a discussion of splits in the Conservative party. Interestingly, the right hon. Gentleman seemed three times to refuse to back the stance taken by the Leader of the Opposition. I feel, therefore, that he—and both wings of the Conservative party—should be given the opportunity to debate the euro and explain why the Tories have dogmatically ruled out British membership for 10 years, regardless of the economic circumstances or potential benefits for the British people.
Mrs. Beckett: I also heard a large part of the interview with the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I was deeply irritated that the interviewer, uncharacteristically, did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman with what seemed to me to be the pertinent question. What struck me forcefully was not only that the right hon. Gentleman took his usual negative attitude to the euro, but that he spent his entire time saying that the fact that the euro had gone down in value was a very bad thing that would cost jobs and cause great difficulties in economies that have joined the euro. He said that it was, therefore, a jolly good thing that we were not in it. As that was the very opposite of all that he had said about the value of the pound since the general election, I could not understand why he was not questioned on that point by the interviewer.
No matter how inconsistent the right hon. Gentleman may be about his attitude to the euro and the pound, however, there is one matter on which he is entirely consistent—his attitude to whoever happens to be leading his party.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Recently, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced a review of meat inspection charges. A deluge of expensive regulation is sweeping away numerous small abattoirs and food businesses. If the review is to have integrity and win the respect of the industry, it is essential that it should be conducted by someone outside the Ministry who is truly independent. May we have a statement from the Minister on the grounds of the review, its timetable and who will lead it? If we do not have such a statement, the review will be seen to be an internal cover-up by the Ministry.
Mrs. Beckett: As my right hon. Friend the Minister announced the review during a debate in the House only
490
last week, it cannot be called a cover-up. The details of how it will be handled are being considered. The Government think it right and necessary to hold a review into a regime that was largely introduced at the behest and under the supervision of the Conservative Government. The review will be thorough and carried out well. If the hon. Gentleman wants more details about specific matters, I suggest that he tables a few parliamentary questions.
Mr. John Healey: Can my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the schools repair programme? Is she aware that Labour has committed £5.4 billion to the programme, which is twice the amount that the Tories would have spent? Some 10,000 schools in England have already benefited, including Wath comprehensive, Swinton comprehensive and Wickersley comprehensive in my constituency, which received a total of about £150,000 for long-overdue repairs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that should remind the House that while the Government are tackling problems that matter to people, factions in the Opposition are spending their time tackling each other with increasing ferocity?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right about both the value and importance of the school repair programme and how much more important that is than the divisions in the Conservative party. He also reminds his local electorate— where the schools have benefited from this programme—and others of how important it is to give this Government the opportunity to continue to deliver on the promises that we made at the general election on the fundamental services that are of prime importance to the British people. I hope that message will be understood in his area and across the country.
Mr. John Bercow: Given the detailed newspaper reports about allegations that the Labour party in Sheffield and Hackney is engaged in a concerted campaign to persuade and browbeat frail and elderly people to apply for a proxy vote—including, the House should know, through the use of the publicly available register at local town halls, with a view to persuading people who have permanent postal votes instead to opt for a proxy vote—will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to make an early statement upon this important matter? Does she accept that that would provide the Home Secretary with an opportunity to make it clear that he and the Government absolutely deprecate any such conduct in the run-up to the local elections and any others, that any such allegations will be thoroughly investigated by the Labour party nationally, and that any constituency Labour party found guilty of such malpractice will be immediately suspended or disbanded?
Mrs. Beckett: I have heard no report of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I think that he should be cautious in his language. There is no malpractice in encouraging people to take out a postal or proxy vote for their convenience. In many circumstances it can be sensible. As for the notion that in some way this is being misused, I have heard no reports of it whatever. I have not the faintest idea whether they have any reliability or are a wild figment of the imagination of some Conservative party supporter. In the only case of proven electoral fraud that I can recall in recent years, it was the Conservative party that was at fault.
Mr. Ian Cawsey: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Agriculture Select

491
Committee this week published its report into badgers and bovine tuberculosis. As a result the Committee has largely backed Professor Krebs' report to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with some reservations. Those reservations are shared by the all-party animal welfare group, which I chair. We are concerned that in some parts of the country badgers will be obliterated with perhaps no good reason, and that in others badgers will be untouched for perhaps up to seven years, leaving farmers with the difficulty of dealing with bovine TB if it affects their herd and the cold comfort that the Government might see what they can do in five to seven years' time. That is of great concern to hon. Members who are interested in both the rural economy and animal welfare. Can my right hon. Friend arrange for a Minister from MAFF to come to the House to make a statement and hear hon. Members' views?
Mrs. Beckett: The Government have welcomed the Select Committee report. I understand that it is a careful and considered report, and we shall look carefully at its recommendations. We also take seriously the concerns of the all-party animal welfare group. It is difficult to balance the interests of badgers and those of cows, which are, of course, also animals. The Government have been looking at the matter carefully. I share the Select Committee's view that the matter should be handled with a policy approach which is science based. I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early statement on the matter, but I can certainly undertake that the Government will give the Select Committee report the full consideration that it deserves.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Lady for the answer that she gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). When she has these discussions on a possible change of business for the week after next, will she consider whether it might be a good idea, subject to agreement through the usual channels, to have the debate on the House of Lords reform White Paper that week, because it is long outstanding? It would be entirely convenient to debate that, whereas it would be inconvenient to have the debate that my right hon. Friend questioned.
Mrs. Beckett: I undertook to facilitate serious discussions about the business that was originally scheduled. I do not know what their outcome will be. It may be that the consensus is that it is right to continue with the business originally scheduled. We will have to consider that. As to what might replace it if the original business does not continue, this morning has shown that there is a plethora of interesting and engaging subjects, all of which will no doubt claim some part of the Government's attention.

Opposition Day
  10TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Housing and the Green Belt
    Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
    1.25 pm
    Mr. Simon Burns: I beg to move,
    That this House regrets the Government's record on allowing building in the Green Belt and development of greenfield sites and their failure to meet even their own targets for new building on brownfield sites; condemns their refusal to increase their 60 per cent brownfield site building target in line with their recently revised household projection figures; and deplores the Government's failure to protect the countryside.
    It is a little over two months since our last debate on the Government's lackadaisical approach to protecting the countryside and their penchant for concreting over vast tracts of green belt and green-field land, with areas such as Stevenage, West Sussex, Sutton Coldfield and Newcastle as monuments to their anarchic approach to protecting our countryside and the green belt. Since then, there have been two significant Government announcements. First, there was the long awaited and long-overdue publication of the draft revised PPG3—planning policy guidance—on housing. Secondly, there were the revised housing projections, which showed a reduction from 4.4 million houses to 3.8 million.
    In the light of those announcements and, given that some green-field development will be carried out, we must ask how it can be minimised and brown-field site development maximised. Will the Government's preferred approach enable us to do that sustainably and rationally, rather than by pursuing the field-by-field, trench warfare approach so characteristic of their efforts so far? Can the process be improved so that it becomes an opportunity rather than a threat?
    Both in government and in opposition, we have maintained that as much building as feasible should be on brown-field sites. That is why we originally set the 60 per cent. target. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised it to 66 per cent. early last year. I am delighted that the Government have come some way towards our way of thinking and have accepted a 60 per cent. target, even if the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who I understand is to reply to the debate, regards the Government's policy as a recipe for disaster. It would be helpful if he would give greater details on how they will seek to achieve the target.
    The latest available figures show that building on brown-field sites is lagging behind the target, at 53 per cent. PPG3 is supposed to be the blueprint for ensuring that the target is met, but will it have that effect? While we have waited for the guidance, and its long overdue publication, major green-belt developments have been given the green light in places such as West Sussex, Hertfordshire and the west midlands. If new housing continues to be built on green-field sites at the current rate, an area the size of Suffolk will disappear under concrete by the time today's school leavers reach retirement.

    493
    It is worth noting that, in Cambridge city council, both Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors voted for a major review of the green belt to be in the East Anglia regional plan. As the House knows, that means that several thousand houses will be built in south and east Cambridge on green-belt land if the changes take place. That would destroy the purpose of the Cambridge green belt, which is to preserve the unique setting of an historic city. PPG3 talks of extensions to urban areas, which we believe is in some ways misplaced, because it threatens the green belt in the example that I gave. I should be grateful if Ministers, instead of chattering among themselves, would give some thought to how, if the policy in Cambridgeshire goes ahead, the Government will fulfil the purpose of the green belt and protect the historic city of Cambridge.
    In PPG3, the Government talk about urban extensions, but will such extensions not put an unbearable strain on existing infrastructures? We are told that we are to have a sequential approach to the choice of sites, with brown-field sites considered first. Will that slow the planning and development process yet further? Will the Government end up falling even further behind their own targets?
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): This is pathetic.
    Mr. Burns: It is rather pathetic that all that the Minister can do is sit there and try to disturb my speech because he simply does not like having pointed out the inadequacies of his Government on this matter in the past two years.
    As the Minister will know, a recent study published by the Civic Trust and the House-Builders Federation focused on 54 potential brown-field sites identified for building purposes as long ago as 1986. The study revealed that only 39 sites—72 per cent. of that land—had been developed at all in the intervening years and that only between 29 and 54 per cent. of the land had been developed for housing on all or part of a site. The report listed such constraints as contamination, problems of land assembly and what the authors called
    "a lack of flexibility, creativity, technical and market knowledge in some local authorities."
    If the possibility of developing a brown-field site is to be considered for years, but is ultimately to be discarded, the sequential approach could significantly slow up development.
    While we are on the question of contamination, may I draw to the attention of the House the fact that, as I am sure the Minister accepts, this problem needs to be addressed urgently? Last summer, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee report highlighted the issue. It said:
    "We would be appalled if the necessary Regulations on land contamination has not been laid within 10 days of the House returning from the Summer Recess."
    That was the summer recess of 1998, to be of help to the Minister. That was six months ago and no orders have yet been laid.
    On 22 July last year, the Minister for the Environment said that the Government would bring the legislation into force in July 1999. Since then, there has been significant
    494
    slippage. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), told me in a written answer on Tuesday that he hoped that the regulations would be laid in July this year and that they "should"—that was the word that he used, interestingly—be in force on 1 December.
    The slippage and the pedestrian attitude that has highlighted the Government's general approach suggest that there is no sense of urgency. The Government seem to be oblivious to the fact that local government, the industry and environmental interests all eagerly await the regulations. The sooner they are in force, the sooner the clean-up and development of brown-field sites can go ahead. [Interruption.] I hope that Ministers, instead of asininely sitting on the Treasury Bench, saying, "Hear, hear," will pull their fingers out and do something so that we do not have the slippage that the Select Committee so hoped almost a year ago would not happen.
    Barely do we have the revised draft PPG3 than the Secretary of State publishes his revised household projection figures. The previous figure of 4.4 million houses—on which all planners had been working—has been reduced to 3.8 million. At a stroke, the Government's targets for overall development, as well as for green-field sites, seem—superficially—to be more attainable. There will be less new development, presumably including that on green-field sites—or is that too good to be true? That remains to be seen, but the Opposition will certainly carefully study those figures and the assumptions that underlie them—when we know exactly what those assumptions are.
    Mr. John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend not think that it is odd that the figures have been revised without the workings being published? Has my hon. Friend noticed that a former professional adviser to the former Department of the Environment has said publicly that he cannot believe that those figures are correct and that he is unable to judge them because the workings have not been provided? We shall have to wait until this autumn to find out how the Government arrived at that conclusion. It would be nice if we could be given that conclusion, but is it not odd—indeed, even suspicious—to publish a new figure without explaining how it has been reached?
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Given the fact that the Government pay so much lip service to open government, one would have assumed that, when publishing sets of figures that would have such an important impact throughout the country, they would publish the assumptions and workings behind them. It is quite extraordinary that they have not; sadly, it is typical of the contempt in which the Government hold the House and the way in which it carries out its business that they are prepared to publish a result without the workings that elaborate on it.
    Mr. Gummer: If that is the case, perhaps my hon. Friend will suggest to Ministers that, if they could manage a commitment of 60 per cent., or 4.4 million, of houses on brown-field sites, and, even if we are now to assume

    495
    that the number is 3.8 million, they might agree—roughly speaking—to my hope, while I was Secretary of State for the Environment, of 75 per cent.
    Mr. Burns: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can reassure him that I shall deal with his intervention later.
    At present, however, hon. Members in the Chamber are in a fortunate position, because the purpose of the debate is to hold the Government to account for their failings in a matter that has such a great impact on communities throughout the country. My right hon. Friend raised a most important point in relation to the publication of the new projected housing figures without any of the background work to support them. We are fortunate in that two Ministers are sitting on the Treasury Bench. Perhaps at least one of those Ministers would like to deal with the extremely valid point made by my right hon. Friend. Ministers could intervene now or, if they have to bide time by seeking the advice of their civil servants, we shall await their comments in either their opening or their closing speeches.
    It remains to be seen whether the figures are too good to be true. We shall certainly examine them extremely carefully—as well as the assumptions that underlie them—when all the reasons for the Government's decision are available to us and to the rest of the country. However, we can calculate on the basis of the former figures that, if the Government have got the figures wrong, 600,000 families or individuals will have nowhere to live during the time span of the projected housing figures. [Interruption.] I can reassure the Minister that I fully appreciate—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I would be grateful if hon. Members stopped making casual remarks from sedentary positions—that would be most helpful to the debate.
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you appreciate that I am fully aware that the time span has changed with the announcement of the latest figures, if only because the Government made it clear when they published the new figures in their press releases, which they kindly send to me.
    We can calculate on the basis of the old figures that, if the Government have got it wrong, 600,000 families or individuals will have nowhere to live. We understand that the projections remain much the same in the south-east, but that there will be sharp falls in other parts of the country. We shall have to await the Secretary of State's contacting the regional planning conferences to outline the details before we know for sure whether our understanding is correct, but that is certainly what is rumoured. Will there really be fewer widows and divorced people in the next 25 years than were previously expected? If so, it would be interesting to know the basis on which the Government reached that conclusion. When will the Secretary of State tell regional planning bodies how the reduced 3.8 million projection will affect their areas?
    Mr. John Wilkinson: My hon. Friend makes a most interesting point about a hypothetical
    496
    reduction in the number of widows and divorced people. Is the reduction in the figures not attributable, at least in part, to a projected increase in cohabitation? Whereas in the past people would live separately, they now live together openly.
    Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The somewhat sketchy information which has so far been published gives the increase in cohabitation as one of the reasons for the reduced housing projections. It is important that we should have access to the workings that have gone into the figures, because it would be interesting to know the rate of split-up of cohabiting partners. Obviously, some cohabiting partners split up, as do married couples, but we are in the dark as to its impact because we do not know the details of the workings for the figures. Our uncertainty would be eased by being told exactly how the Government carried out their calculations, but I fear that time alone will tell.
    The Government's announcement is hedged around with qualifications. It stresses that 3.8 million is not a precise figure; yet, even on the sharply reduced forecast, we shall need 150,000 new households a year, every year, for the next quarter of a century. All in all, the Government's recent announcement raises more questions than it answers, because they did not publish the evidence and the workings when they published the figures. The Government have got matters back to front by making an announcement of that nature and then expecting the country and interested parties to wait six months or so to see the complete picture that would enable them to form an independent view on how accurate and realistic the figures were.
    Given that the emphasis on housebuilding will, in many cases, revolve around urbanism, the first objective must be mixed-use development.
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): As it appears that quite a lot of disinformation is going around, I should like to point out that the press release on household growth that was published by my Department on 29 March 1999 laid out the regional figures.
    We did that, first, because it conformed with the practice of previous Administrations: nobody would question the ability and credibility of staff at the Office for National Statistics and, in one sense, the figures are not Government figures, but a reflection of what the ONS has said.
    We did it, secondly, because, starting on 14 May, an important hearing will take place in the south-east—the examination in public of the guidance produced by the South East regional planning conference. The Government thought that it was responsible to ensure that the regional information was available to that hearing; but, as usual, the more detailed district and county information will be published later this year.
    Mr. Burns: I fully accept what the Minister says, because we have all seen the press release. My point is that the Government have published figures up to a certain level, which they have not gone beyond. A Minister recently told me in a written answer that the Government could not confirm whether there would be any change in the projected figures for the county of Essex. He said that

    497
    we had to wait until the Secretary of State had written to the regional planning bodies. The junior Minister has kindly confirmed that that is absolutely correct. Of course it is, but, to understand the significance and the impact of the figures fully, we must know their effect on specific planning areas in a county. We do not have that information.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: Is it not extraordinary that the Minister prays in aid the fact that an examination in public is about to take place and the new figures are now available? However, when I asked him about the county structure plan and the EIP that had taken place in Devon but had not yet been finalised, he dismissed my question and said, "It has already taken place, so we cannot take account of new information." The Government seem to have one rule for one part of the country and another for somewhere else.
    Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: the situation is nothing short of chaotic. That is totally unacceptable to the House, to local authorities which must do the work and to the public who want to know how the Government's policy will impact on their local communities.
    Mr. Gummer rose—
    Mr. Burns: I will give way once more and then I must make progress. Many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
    Mr. Gummer: Is my hon. Friend not being far too kind to the Government? They have given a figure, but we know that the Office for National Statistics usually provides a range of figures and that the office must have done the work in order to produce that figure. Why do we not have the details of that work? Either the Government have those details, and will not publish them, or they do not have the details, in which case the figure is meaningless. In one way or another, the Government have got it wrong.
    Mr. Burns: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is inconceivable that the Government would not be prepared to publish the figures if they had them. It will be fascinating to hear the Minister's explanation. We want to know whether the Government have the figures. If they do have them, why can they not publish them, so that we can examine them now instead of waiting until later this year?
    Mr. Caborn rose—
    Mr. Burns: I said that I would take no more interventions; I wish to conclude. The Minister will have the opportunity to speak in about three minutes, when he will be able to provide all the answers that he likes.
    The agenda for this building must be determined by scale, certainty, planning for sustainability and the proper use and distribution of planning gain for the benefit of the whole community. We believe also that, logically, if the projected housebuilding figure is to be reduced by about 600,000, it is time for the Government to be bold and to raise their 60 per cent. brown-field site target. The Government now have a golden opportunity to raise that
    498
    figure to 66 per cent., as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has done, which would be environmentally friendly and show badly needed common sense.
    The Government know full well that some people, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), have suggested an even higher figure of 75 per cent. for brown-field site building. I believe that it is time for the Government to re-examine their 60 per cent. commitment and to raise it, given the changed circumstances.
    The first two years of this Government's policy on the green belt and on green-field building have been characterised by bullying, destruction of the green belt and a lack of clear direction. The publication of the revised PPG3 and the reduced housing projection figures give the Government the chance to put their mistakes and the damage of the past two years behind them. Now is the time for the Government to think again and come up with a policy that is environmentally friendly and relevant to the country's housing needs, and will not ruin whole swathes of the countryside. I urge the Government to seize that opportunity.
    1.50 pm
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    "welcomes the Government's continued commitment to protecting the countryside and promoting an urban renaissance, and maintaining tight planning controls over the Green Belt and other designated green spaces; recognises that the Government's decentralised and integrated policy approach is helping to achieve more sustainable and equitable patterns of urban and rural development; welcomes the Government's commitment to increase the proportion of new housing on previously-developed land in urban areas, smaller towns and villages from 40 per cent in the mid-1980s to 60 per cent; recognises the benefits of replacing the previous 'predict and provide' approach to the issue of household growth with a more flexible 'plan, monitor and manage' system; and believes that the Government's inter-linked policies for urban regeneration and protection of the countryside will enhance the quality of life for people in both rural and urban areas.".
    I shall begin by addressing the Opposition's charges against the Government—which have been poorly made—as stated in their motion. The Opposition claim that we are allowing large-scale development in the countryside and the green belt. Given the previous Administration's record, their charges are opportunistic, even hypocritical. I remind the House that it was Conservative Members who let the market rip. Clearly, they are trying, in speeches by their Front-Bench Members, to dissociate themselves from that policy. They did nothing to deal with the problems of urban sprawl and the decline of our inner cites.
    Under the previous Government, large areas of the green belt were released for development and little effort was made to promote housebuilding on recycled land. Their record reveals that, between 1985 and 1995, only 42 per cent. of new homes were built on recycled land. They knew that their policy was not good enough, but they did not have the bottle to widen people's horizons and take on the "not in my back yard" syndrome.

    499
    The previous Government approved development in the green belt in places such as north Kent, Manchester, south Bedfordshire and Woking. Conservative Members deliberately mislead the public on housing development by confusing green-field sites with the green belt.
    Mr. Gummer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Caborn: No. I shall proceed further with my speech before I let the right hon. Gentleman intervene.
    It was, of course, also the previous Administration who embraced the inflexible, top-down, predict-and-provide approach to household growth and denied local people a say in how much new housing should be built and where in their region it should be built.
    Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman quoted four places, but I can, off hand, point out that, in two of them, the developments were not housing: one was Manchester airport, which could hardly be built in the middle of a city; the other was a much-needed opportunity for jobs which the Labour party demanded. Will the right hon. Gentleman please not misinform the House?
    Mr. Caborn: I shall not misinform the House. I shall give right hon. and hon. Members the facts and they can, if they want, read the three-page list of places where the Conservatives allowed green-belt development to take place.
    What are this Government doing to promote new thinking on planning for housing and urban renewal? We are decentralising decision making and replacing the top-down mentality, with its predict-and-provide approach, with a more flexible system of plan, monitor and manage.
    I shall contrast the previous Administration's role with the actions of this Government and past Labour Governments. The post-war Labour Government introduced the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, they did, and we are proud of the fact that they established the green belt and the national parks. If we read the history books, we find that Conservative Administrations have done nothing to protect the countryside and the green belt. They did not even challenge the predict-and-provide approach, as we are now doing with our system of plan, monitor and manage, which will be much more effective.
    Mr. Ian Cawsey: Conservative Members do not need to tell us what their plans for the green belt are, because in certain parts of Britain, those plans are evident. In north Lincolnshire, the area that I represent, the unitary authority that was formed in 1996 now has a Labour administration, which has drafted its first local plan. That would reduce green-field development, protect the green belt and prevent the over-development of villages. The Conservatives in opposition on the council oppose that draft plan and will stand for election next Thursday saying that they will overturn it if they are elected. They would increase development on green-field sites and in villages. A number of their candidates have, in the past, been personal
    500
    beneficiaries of that policy, and they want it to be reinstated. That is what the Conservative party does to green-field sites and the green belt.
    Mr. Caborn: That speaks for itself. It may be a Labour party political broadcast. Are there some elections in the near future?
    Mr. Cawsey indicated assent.
    Mr. Caborn: Yes, there are. Well, I hope that the electorate who will have the opportunity to vote in the local elections have taken note of what my hon. Friend said, which was very telling. Such behaviour obviously follows on from what the previous Administration did when they were in power.
    The Government are developing innovatory ideas to regenerate towns and cities—a legacy of that previous Administration—to increase the use of recycled land and improve the quality of life of everyone who lives in urban areas. Our aim is nothing less than to drive an urban renaissance, providing for sustainable growth in both urban and rural areas.
    What the Government have grasped, which unfortunately Conservative Members cannot seem to see, is that there is a link between protecting the countryside, the green belt and urban renewal. Everyone agrees about that. Many members of the Conservative party believe that we are approaching these issues in precisely the right way, and our approach has been commended by some Conservative Members from time to time. What is more, there is widespread support for the approach that the present Administration are taking to land use and transport planning. That support comes from the Confederation of British Industry, the house builders, and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, to name but a few. I shall quote from the CPRE press release.
    "The Government's new planning policies begin to put teeth into its commitment to protect the countryside and revitalise the towns.
    They should have a significant impact on the geography of new building and help to contain urban sprawl."
    Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Caborn: No.
    Therefore, I welcome the debate—the fifth that we have held on the subject in less than two years. I thank the Tories—the official Opposition—for letting us have a free party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour party. May we have many more in future? If we can arrange one just before the European elections, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it might help to get more Labour votes.
    Let me repeat what we have already achieved since the previous debate on the green belt, requested by the Conservative party, in February. Our statement "Planning for the Communities of the Future" marked a break with the past and set out our objectives for the urban renaissance that I have mentioned. It signalled a departure from the days of predict and provide, and the previous Administration's laissez-faire policies.
    We have set a clear 60 per cent. national target for new housing to be built on recycled land, which was supported by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. We believe that it is realistic and challenging,

    501
    and will encourage the regions to go even higher. By contrast, the Conservative party still seems unable to agree on any national target, and bandies figures about—as we heard this afternoon—without any idea of how they will be achieved.
    We announced a significant increase in the funds available for urban regeneration and the protection of the countryside. We have launched the new deal for the communities initiative. We have increased the funds available through the single regeneration budget. We have freed up £5 billion of capital receipts for local authorities to use in their housing programmes. We have strengthened PPG6 to make an even firmer declaration of our intention to curb the excesses of out-of-town shopping.
    We have devoted real resources to address the economic and social problems in rural areas. To mention one initiative, we have put £170 million into rural bus services. As a result, in many areas, people now have a bus service after years without one.
    Mr. James Gray: The right hon. Gentleman has prayed in aid the CPRE. Will he explain why another non-governmental organisation, Friends of the Earth, described the recent Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee report as
    "a damning indictment of Government plans"?
    Why did the Labour-dominated Committee say
    "The Government's proposals are well-intentioned, but vague"
    and
    "not adequate to achieve their aims"?
    How does he answer that accusation?
    Mr. Caborn: We have answered the Select Committee report; I am a great supporter of Select Committees. I look at these matters historically and I am describing what we have done. The Opposition give me the opportunity to present a monthly report to the House on planning generally and I have set out what we have done, up to the February debate. I shall now tell the House this Administration's achievements since February. I am giving an update, and I have no doubt that the Select Committee will consider those issues. Friends of the Earth will then be able to make its judgment. I have no doubt that, like the CPRE, it will be converted and say that the Labour Government are doing an absolutely first-class job.
    I have stated the Government's record up to February, and we have not been resting on our laurels in the few weeks since the Opposition last initiated such a debate. We have not stopped working and we will continue to modernise. We have issued revised drafts of planning policy guidance on development plans and on regional planning—PPG12 and PPG11. We have released the new household projection figures, set up a new system of plan, monitor and manage and officially launched the new business-led regional development agencies, which take a strategic overview of the needs of each of the English regions.
    On 12 April, I published a report detailing progress on our modernisation planning initiative over the past 15 months. I sent every Member of the House a copy, to keep them informed. I have not heard any criticisms of
    502
    the report since Conservative Members received it. If anything, I have had slight congratulation from one of them. We are now moving in the right direction.
    On 23 March, we published our revised PPG3, on housing. I was asked about that in the, previous debate on this subject. I am happy that the revised PPG3 was warmly received, even by those on the Opposition Benches. It represents a major departure from previous policy and introduces, for the first time, a sequential approach to planning for housing.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley rose—
    Mr. Caborn: I shall give way in a moment.
    No longer will there be a stampede to build ad hoc on green-field sites. Priority must be given to recycled land and vacant sites before green-field sites are built on—brown-field first must make sense. If Conservative Members think differently, they should say so. I give the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) the opportunity to do so now.
    Mr. Lansley: The Minister intervened earlier to say that it is important to distinguish between green-field sites and the green belt. He rightly says that the draft of PPG3 refers to a sequential approach for development plans in which previously developed land is considered first and green-field sites after, but PPG3 also refers to urban extensions. That could come into conflict with the green-belt policy. In respect of that sequential approach, why did not he say expressly in PPG3 that building on green-belt land should be a last resort?
    Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a presumption against building on green belt—it is quite specific. It is for local authorities to make recommendations—on structure plans and through the examination in public, which I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking part in—if they want to change the green belt. That is up to them. It is for the Secretary of State to decide whether to accept such changes.
    As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot comment on any specific application or development of a structure plan, but the debates that people are having during the examination in public try to resolve some of those difficult issues. I remind him that there is a presumption against building on the green belt.
    Mr. Lansley: I do not wish to misrepresent the Minister's view, but can I take it that I am therefore wrong to think that PPG3, which refers to considering extension of urban areas before considering the use of green-field sites, can come into conflict with PPG2 on green belt? Is it to be presumed under the sequential approach to development plans that building on, and allocation of, green-belt land for development should be the last resort?
    Mr. Caborn: I repeat: there is a presumption against such development in PPG2, which refers to the green belt. If a planning authority wants an urban extension, which would be a major shift, that will have to be in its structure plan and the planning guidance. We have treated PPG3 like any other planning guidance. It is out for consultation at the moment and we will make the final decisions. I reiterate that there is a presumption against building on green belt. That stands.

    503
    Let me deal with what will happen in the future. As I have said, I have given you an update on what has happened since the February debate—on what we have done in practical terms.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister keeps using the word "you". I must ask him to use correct parliamentary language.
    Mr. Caborn: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    The Government's record up to and beyond February has been presented to the House; let me now say what we shall be doing in future. In a few weeks, we shall release the first figures from the national land use database, which will be a domesday book for the new millennium. We have had a big debate about building on brown-field sites. When this Government came to office, I asked a simple question: how much brown-field land was available? The answer was, "We do not know." One of our first moves was an attempt to establish the facts, so that we could have a reasonable debate. We wanted to discover exactly how much brown-field land we had in this nation of ours—and we should know the answer in the next few weeks. The information will give details of all brown-field sites that are ripe for development.
    Before the summer, Richard Rogers's urban task force will publish its report, which will inject new ideas and momentum into our goal of returning life to our towns and cities. That report will be followed, later in the year, by urban and rural White Papers setting out practical policies for the implementation of the ideas presented in it. All our initiatives attack not just the symptoms but the causes of urban decline, with the aim of creating urban renewal. If we can make our urban centres more vibrant, exciting and pleasant places in which to live, work and play, we shall already have gone a long way towards protecting our countryside from the pressures of continued development.
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend is aware of the situation in Nottinghamshire, because he has been there. He is now referring to perhaps the most crucial aspect of the planning system. If we cannot end the depopulation of our cities by means of the "joined-up" policies that he has mentioned, we really are in trouble. Urban regeneration—the tackling of problems such as crime, poor housing, the lack of services such as education, and under-achievement —is fundamental to the easing of pressure on the green belt.
    Mr. Caborn: I know of the problems that my hon. Friend experiences in the Nottingham area. Under the new deal for regeneration, the Government have committed more than £3 billion over the next three years. That will complement the housing investment that I mentioned, and will make real improvements in the most deprived areas—areas to which my hon. Friend has referred.
    On Monday I was in Manchester, announcing the names of the winners of a competition to build new homes at Britannia basin in Castlefield. That regeneration project attracted 162 entries, which was the second-highest response ever received by the Royal Institute of British Architects. The response demonstrates the extent of
    504
    interest in the reuse of brown-field sites. Similar initiatives are under way elsewhere in the country, but that particular initiative involved designers and developers such as Tom Bloxham of Urban Splash, along with RIBA, in a creative move to combine the talents of many young people. We were told that that had never been encouraged under the last Administration.
    Our enthusiasm for the urban renaissance shows that we are fully committed to the countryside. As the House is doubtless fed up with being told, more Labour Members than Conservative Members represent rural constituencies, and they are doing a damn good job. Our concern must be not just with the enjoyment of the countryside for its own sake, but for those who live and work there. Only this week, I had a discussion with members of our Back-Bench rural group to try to find new ways of returning life to the economies of run-down areas of rural England. Rural England is changing, and the new Labour Government will respond to that change.
    The rural White Paper will examine the long-term future for the English countryside and how policies on the economy, health, education, crime, agriculture and the environment will support a sustainable countryside and rural communities in the future. It will consider how the prosperity and competitiveness of the rural economy can be strengthened, how development and regeneration policies can help those areas in need, and how we can ensure that all rural people have opportunities to participate fully in society.
    Our consultation on the discussion document "Rural England" ends tomorrow, and we shall consider the responses carefully as we prepare the White Paper. [Interruption.] It is no good Conservative Members complaining. They initiated the debate, and I thank them heartily for enabling me to present the Government's record. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am getting on with it. I hope that Conservative Members are enjoying it.
    There will be close co-ordination as we link the urban White Paper to the proposals being developed in the rural White Paper. This is joined-up government with joined-up money. Our commitment to protecting our green spaces and green belt could not be stronger. As Opposition Members know, development is permitted in the green belt only under very special circumstances. There is a presumption against such development. We see the green belt as vital to stopping urban sprawl and supporting sustainable development. There is no evidence that we have any intention of weakening our policy on the green belt. The facts speak for themselves. Since we came to power two years ago, we have increased the size of the green belt by some 30,000 hectares. That is not a loss: it is a major gain.
    I remind the House that green belt does not mean green field. A green-field site is any undeveloped land. Not all green belt is free from development. Many developments existed long before the green belt was defined. Development in green belt frequently involves redevelopment of previously used sites. This Government, like their predecessors, have a policy to try to ensure that such redevelopments yield environmental improvements compared with the developments they replace, and that happens by and large.
    Equally, green belt is not a landscape designation. All kinds and qualities of land, including derelict sites, may be in the green belt. Less than 5 per cent. of green belt

    505
    overlaps with statutory national landscape or wildlife designations. Green belt is also not a national designation: it is primarily a local designation within a regional framework, and decisions about the setting and altering of boundaries, or about permitting development, rest primarily with the local authority and local people, and that will continue. That is why regional planning policy guidance shows the weight we attach to continued protection.
    The future is about harnessing growth to promote a better quality of urban life and to bring life back to the hearts of our towns and cities. That will relieve pressure on the countryside. The Government aim to provide sufficient housing so that everyone who wants one can have a decent home. We also aim to ensure that houses are of better quality, built in a better environment, and provide for sustainable communities in which people are proud to live.[Interruption.] We even have young people on our side. That was a little cheer and a "Hear, hear". If Conservative Members disagree with the objective of providing decent homes for people to live in, they should say so.
    Urban renaissance and protection of the countryside are not mutually exclusive: they are interlinked. That was one of the weaknesses of the previous Administration's policies. They let development rip in the green belt and on green-field sites, and they allowed inner cities and towns to rot. Let us stop this nonsense about urban versus rural and town versus city. Let us get on with the job of improving the quality of our housing and environment and creating real sustainable development. That is exactly what we are doing, and what we shall continue to do.
    2.14 pm
    Mrs. Angela Browning: The subject of the protection of green-field sites in my constituency is not new to the Minister, because I have raised this matter with him. It would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity of today's debate, initiated by my right hon. and hon. Friends, to bring to the House's attention again the grave injustice in the county of Devon.
    The Devon county structure plan consultation began almost two and a half years ago, when I was a Minister in the previous Government. I made representations in a written submission on behalf of my constituents. I wrote to my colleague, the then Minister at the Department of the Environment, prior to becoming involved in the county structure plan consultation. In November 1995, the then Minister, Mr. Robert Jones, wrote to me when I queried the number of houses predicted for Devon, and in particular the proposal for a new town to be built in my constituency on green-field sites. He said that
    "these figures should not be regarded as inflexible targets and they should be subject to testing through the structure plan process."
    As a constituency Member of Parliament, I do not claim to be an expert in planning matters. However, I have learned quite a lot in the past two and a half years. I have made written submissions at every opportunity throughout the structure plan process, and I spent four days at the examination in public in Devon, on three of which I gave evidence. The message that came home to me was that when the Government came to office, they did not share the previous Government's view that the figures should not be regarded as "inflexible targets" and should be subject to testing through the structure plan process.
    506
    As a Member of Parliament, I have used every democratic process open to me, including an Adjournment debate on the Floor of the House. I have personally presented a letter at the door of No. 10 Downing street to try to get Ministers to recognise the views of the people of my constituency. I am not the only one involved. On Conservative-controlled East Devon district council, there is cross-party opposition to the plan for a new town to be built in east Devon.
    We know why there needs to be a new town in east Devon: it is nothing to do with my constituents, but it has to do with the views of the Labour-controlled city of Exeter, which wants to grow. That is not an unreasonable request, but it wants to expand at the expense of my constituents in east Devon, and to extend the borders of the city of Exeter into my constituency. That was made very clear at the examination in public, and it is why the Labour-controlled city council and its Member of Parliament have supported the proposal for the new town.
    I should be interested to hear the Minister's views because although the area in question is not green belt, it is green field. When we talk about urban sprawl and pushing out the boundaries of urban areas, we are talking about such development coming into my constituency.
    There is an additional complication in this particular part of my constituency. The land that has been identified as the most likely site for the new town borders Exeter airport in my constituency. The airport is vital to the economy not just of my constituency but of that part of Devon. There should be no development close to the border of the airport which would restrict its growth and development—that is important for its future viability.
    That matter was raised in specific terms at the examination in public. Indeed, evidence was taken from people who gave the panel their views on the noise from the airport—noise such as that produced during the ground testing of aircraft engines at night when they are being repaired and serviced. I was shocked, because one of the Minister's predecessors in the previous Government told me in writing that examinations in public should not be site-specific. One cannot get more site-specific than the taking of evidence about the noise generated in a particular locality during the ground testing of aircraft engines.
    What has really saddened me—and saddened my constituents, as proven in my own surveys, in questions from the media, and in public meetings that I have held—is that there is universal opposition to building that new town in my constituency. The people do not want it; the people do not need it. East Devon district council planning authority, which is the representative body closest to local people, does not want the new town, and has opposed it at every stage of the consultation process. Conservatives members of Devon county council have opposed it.
    The Liberal Democrats on Devon county council are the ones who approved the new town and voted yes to it. Although some of the district council colleagues of the Liberal Democrats on Devon county council walked with me up to the door of No. 10 Downing street to oppose the plan, those county councillors voted for it because their leader said that, had they not done so, the Deputy Prime Minister would have imposed on the county of Devon even more punitive requirements—and the Government's bully-boy tactics generally in planning bear that out.
    Mr. John Hayes: I am rather surprised by my hon. Friend's comments, and

    507
    should like to be absolutely clear about them. I assumed, perhaps rather naively, that Liberal Democrats on the county council would be sensitive to local opinion, but perhaps my hon. Friend will clarify the true position, which I feel should be amplified. Although we already knew that the Labour party is in favour of urban sprawl and of developing green-field towns, is she telling us that the Liberal Democrats in her part of the country are also in favour of destruction of the green belt, green fields and the countryside?
    Mrs. Browning: They voted yes; I sat in the county hall and personally witnessed it.
    Perhaps we should not be so surprised that Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions take the views that they do and create the impression that people hold of them—those Ministers carry baggage. The Minister for London and Construction, on 23 January 1997, before he was elected to government, told Planning Week that a target of 60 per cent. of brown-field sites would be "a recipe for disaster" because it would create excessively high densities in cities. He also said that there was "absolutely no doubt" that the only realistic way of meeting the housing figure was to develop new towns and settlements. The Minister shakes his head, but, if he has been misquoted, I hope that he will print a correction.
    Before I initiated an Adjournment debate on the matter, to which the Minister replied, I took a rather unprecedented step: I telephoned his private office prior to the debate to let him know what I would say, because I was seeking some co-operation and help from the Government. I went even further.
    I presented a letter at No. 10 Downing street to the Prime Minister, seeking his intervention, so that at least the planning authority—East Devon district council—might be able to sit down with Ministers and talk through its grave concerns about the proposals being imposed on it. I wrote:
    "Your Government has proposed that more homes should be built on brown field sites rather than green field sites. We agree. You have personally assured the people of Devon that local views will be listened to."
    I took the Prime Minister at his word—more fool me: not only did he not intervene, but local people have not been listened to. I as a Member of Parliament have not been listened to, and the district council has not been listened to. The Liberal Democrat-controlled Devon county council has been bullied into pursuing a certain route— [Interruption.] Perhaps that is what the Lib-Lab pact is all about—or perhaps those Liberal Democrat councillors reached their decision voluntarily.
    Mr. Raynsford: Before the hon. Lady mentions bullying again, will she just recall that the Conservative Minister whose record she was praising a moment ago proposed a housing figure for the county of Devon that was 7,200 higher than that which the Government have approved because of the county structure plan inquiry? Is that bullying by the Government, or hypocrisy on the part of the Conservative party?
    Mrs. Browning: I personally wrote to the Minister, although he may not recall my letter, asking whether, if
    508
    the Liberal Democrats who control the county council genuinely felt that they did not want to support the figure, but were genuinely concerned that Ministers would force them to accept an even higher one if they refused the initial one, he would—before we reach the final stage in the structure plan consultation—confirm to me that the councillors were misguided in that assumption. We have never had—
    Mr. Raynsford: Answer the question.
    Mrs. Browning: I shall answer the question in a moment. I do not intend to dodge the Minister's questions, as he has been dodging mine for the past year.
    I wrote to the Minister so that I might be able to take his reply to the county council and say to its Liberal Democrat leader, "You have this wrong. Ministers are not going to foist anything on you. Democracy is alive and well and is living in Devon. Local people will be listened to, as the Prime Minister promised." But I was not able to do that.
    We must therefore assume, in the absence of the type of assurance that I was seeking from the Minister, that perhaps the Liberal Democrats were right. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head and says no. I think that we must assume that the Liberal Democrats, like Labour-controlled Exeter city council, are in cahoots in the matter and are anxious to foist the new town, against the wishes of the people, on my constituents. It is no good the Minister shaking his head. We are going to have the town—we know it now—which will be a tribute to new Labour. We must find a suitable name for it.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Raynsfordville.
    Mrs. Browning: Yes; that would be such a good name for it.
    Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Browning: Yes—I am so generous to the Minister; it is unprecedented.
    Mr. Raynsford: I am so grateful to the hon. Lady. Perhaps she will now answer the question that I asked her.
    Mrs. Browning: I shall do so.
    Whatever figures were finally arrived at in the structure plan, which is a democratic process involving many stages, my colleague in the previous Government explicitly stated in his letter, which I quoted to the Minister and in oral evidence to the examination in public, that the figures were not set in tablets of stone, but were subject to the scrutiny of the democratic process—namely, the structure plan consultation that has lasted for almost two and a half years.
    What I do not understand, and what the people of my constituency do not accept, is that although we gave approval and support to the Government's announced policies of building on brown-field sites, of listening to local people and of following the democratic process, we could not get from Ministers one iota of sympathy or support. Ministers wanted to railroad through the proposals, despite the fact that, as we knew, revised figures would be forthcoming.

    509
    The Minister quoted the Council for the Protection of Rural England. The CPRE advised the Government that there was likely to be a readjustment of the figures. There was every reason not to railroad through the proposals, but to say, "Let's look at the new figures, revise our decision making, and allow the local people to revise their decision making in the light of local feelings and new information."
    The Devon branch of the CPRE stated:
    "The South West Regional Planning Conference is now aiming for the 'lowest technically justified figure' under the new process proposed in the revised Regional Planning rules, and at the end of this year we shall get the new household projections based on the 1995 figures (instead of the 1992 figures currently used) …
    These are expected to show lower rates of net inward migration, but there are now serious doubts about other aspects of the national"—
    housing—
    "projections."
    The issue was raised in oral evidence at the examination in public. Ministers knew about it, yet they have not been prepared to say that there could be a moratorium in Devon while the figures were analysed and considered further so that we would not have to rush into making decisions about building two new towns—one in my constituency—but would be able to reflect the views of local people based on accurate figures rather than on figures that have been universally accepted as out of date.
    The Minister prays in aid representatives of the building industry. I sat through four days of an examination in public, before which the builders' representative in my constituency had already named the new town. What a mockery of democracy it is when a building company circulates literature and names a new town before the democratic process is over.
    We do not expect to win this battle, but I do not intend to throw in the towel. We are now looking for evidence that the Minister is genuine in his desire to protect green-field sites, to use brown-field sites first and then to reassess the situation. I hope that if he is, he will accept from me a request by East Devon district council, which now has to produce the plans for the town.
    Not only does the council have to produce those plans, but it has been told by the Prime Minister that it has to produce them. After I had presented my letter to Downing street, the Prime Minister wrote back to me, and his final paragraph states:
    "East Devon District Council must now commence work as soon as possible to produce a Local Plan to 2011 which makes provision for the new community proposed in the Structure Plan."
    That edict from on high before the consultation period was over was not greeted with joy in the county of Devon. It was one more example of the way in which the Government say one thing but, when faced with a situation in which they could have made a difference and stood by their word and their policies, they deliberately fail to honour them.
    Will people from the Minister's Department sit down around a table, without press or publicity, with the representatives of the planning authority, East Devon district council, and discuss with them how they are now to apply the planning regulations to the new town against the background of the new rules under PPG3 and other guidance, which the Minister says now represent the way forward?
    510
    Why should the people of Devon be deprived of the opportunity to avail themselves of the new policies when the Minister has made such great play of them? We have said that we will support them too, yet he wants to deny them to the people of Devon. If he can answer my question and agree to that meeting today, I shall be most grateful.
    Mr. Raynsford rose—
    Mr. Gray rose—
    Mr. Raynsford: Is the hon. Lady giving way?
    Mrs. Browning: I was giving way, but I had also finished my speech.
    Mr. Raynsford: I thank the hon. Lady. It was unclear, because her hon. Friend stood up behind her.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot both give way and finish her speech at the same time. I shall assume that she was giving way to the Minister.
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Lady must not confuse the role of Government with the role of the relevant local authorities—the county and district councils, which have specific statutory planning functions. She must recognise that the process has, quite properly, involved consideration at an examination in public of the figures in the draft structure plan, and the acceptance by Government of amended figures substantially lower than those proposed by Conservative Ministers in the previous Government. The consequences of the structure plan now have to work through to the local plans produced by district councils in line with normal planning procedures. The hon. Lady is a former Minister, and should know that it would be improper for any Minister to interfere inappropriately in such statutory proceedings.
    Mrs. Browning: I am not asking the Minister to interfere inappropriately, but surely it is not unreasonable for a planning authority to seek advice from the Department on a specific issue. That request does not come from me personally; it is being articulated by me on behalf of the district council, and is an official request from the planning authority. I aqm sorry that the Minister does not feel that he can respond positively.
    Mr. Raynsford: I assure the hon. Lady that the Government are only too happy to respond positively and that PPG3, which is now out for consultation, may be one element to be taken into account. I understood her to be seeking not advice but a meeting to negotiate the location of a new development, which would be different and entirely inappropriate.
    Mrs. Browning: That was not the content of my letter to the Prime Minister. I ask the Minister to read carefully the wording of that letter, in which I said that we had had to accept that the planning decision had been foisted upon us. The meeting would be to advise the planning authority whether it could avail itself of the new policies, or whether the Government were saying that any changes in

    511
    policy would not apply to the council in connection with the new development. It wanted to know whether it would have to adhere to the existing system.
    It was on that basis, and in good faith, that the planning authority sought a meeting. The aim was not to alter the figures. We have recognised that we have lost that battle. The people of east Devon will remember it for ever as a battle that they fought and lost. We seek to ensure that whatever has to be done under statute, we make as good a job of it as possible. That is a sad situation.
    2.35 pm
    Mr. Colin Burgon: I am pleased to be able to bring a northern perspective to this debate because as my constituency contains within its boundaries most of the green-belt land within the city of Leeds, green belt and planning issues concern me greatly.
    Elmet contains towns such as Wetherby and Garforth, and villages such as Scholes, Barwick, Methley and Boston Spa, which value their separate identity within Leeds. As the Member of Parliament, my desire is to work wherever possible to maintain the character, identity and physical integrity of the towns and villages that I represent. I believe that the planning system should be used, where appropriate, to pursue that objective vigorously.
    Like the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I am a relative novice in planning issues, but I have increasingly realised that, certainly in a city such as Leeds, the future of the green belt is intimately bound up with the developments taking place in the inner cities.
    There is little doubt that we need to maximise the number of new homes built on previously developed land—that is, on brown-field sites or, as many of us would prefer to say, recycled land. That will not only ensure that we preserve as many green-field sites as possible, but will regenerate our existing towns and cities. The need to make our urban areas attractive places to live is the other side of the coin of saving our countryside and green spaces. Any person who sees the green belt and urban renaissance as two entirely separate processes is wrong.
    I am pleased to say that, as in many other respects, my city of Leeds is giving a lead in city centre regeneration. In my recent talks with councillors, it has been stressed that the city already achieves the Government target of putting 60 per cent. of its new development on recycled land. I am proud of my city, as hon. Members would expect, and I know that it is keen to do even better. The Government's task is to give the encouragement and support that will enable the council to do that. That will require economic, fiscal and regulatory measures in transport, land assembly, site remediation and building rehabilitation, to facilitate a partnership approach designed to achieve the desired objective of urban renewal—or, as the Minister called it, in language better than I could use, urban renaissance.
    At national level, it must be remembered that many new homes—up to 1 million, it is estimated—could be provided by refurbishing rundown empty dwellings, by so-called "living above the shop" initiatives, and by the conversion of old office and industrial premises, as seen in many waterfront sites.
    512
    It must not be thought that recycled land is available only in urban centres. In my constituency, we have a 52-acre colliery site to be developed at Allerton Bywater. I am sure that because it has been chosen as a millennium village site, the development will be of the highest quality, but the other benefit to local people is that developing the recycled sites will enable us better to protect the green belt round Allerton, which separates it from its neighbouring village of Kippax.
    The Government are fully behind the developments that I have mentioned. The evidence, as outlined by the Minister, is clear from the document "Planning for the Communities of the Future", and from the work of the urban task force under Lord Rogers, alongside whom I am happy to serve on the Millennium Commission advisory panel. I am impressed by his grasp of the subject. There is also the initiative of the millennium communities, and the recently issued draft planning guidance on housing, PPG3, which will be much discussed this afternoon.
    The other key policy strands promoted by the Government that develop the new thinking—I shall not say "joined-up thinking"; I had better stick to the phrase "new coherent approach"—are sustainability and integrated public transport. Sustainability requires us to cease pepper-potting new housing developments in small villages and towns, and to focus on more substantial mixed tenure and mixed use developments which contribute to viable and mixed communities. Everybody deserves a decent home, and affordable housing provision must be an integral part of our approach. Nowhere is that more evident than in the Wetherby area of my constituency. Far too often, young people are priced out of living in that area. That cannot be right and I hope that the Government will encourage local councils to develop ways of making the long-talked-about aspiration of affordable housing a reality.
    The emphasis on enhanced public transport provision similarly requires us to concentrate development along existing or potential public transport corridors instead of in relatively isolated and car-dependent communities. That might, in special circumstances, require the redrawing of green belt boundaries—their relaxing in public transport corridors, but their tightening elsewhere. I know that Ministers will be actively considering the implications of such an approach.
    In looking ahead, I urge the Government to do two things. First, they should simplify and demystify the planning system. Much of it is virtually incomprehensible to non-experts. In our successful campaign to defend the green belt around the village of Thorner, a key element was the painstaking and detailed work of Ruth Long, the secretary of the action group, but not everybody will be as lucky as we were with her support. Secondly, we all recognise the need for a proactive and modernised planning system at both regional and local level, and a strong partnership approach to implementation involving the local authorities, the private sector and public transport operators.
    My constituents recognise, and I never tire of telling them, that it was a Labour Government who first established the green belt and the modern planning system in 1945. It is a Labour Government who will be prepared to plan and regulate for a more cohesive and sustainable society for us all.
    2.42 pm
    Mr. Tom Brake: There can be no doubt that the Tory party has a death wish—which is something to be encouraged. That is obvious from the way in which it is conducting the local election campaign and its well-publicised splits, and from the subject it has chosen for debate today.
    Let us consider the Tories' record; it is not one to be proud of. They achieved only just over 40 per cent. of development on brown-field land, as we have heard from the Minister. Every hon. Member can think of green-field developments in their constituencies which the previous Administration allowed to proceed. In many cases, the previous Secretary of State forced through those developments, both residential and out of town, on appeal. We all know that it is de rigueur in the Tory party these days to apologise for past mistakes, whether Thatcherism, or underfunding of the NHS or the state education system. The Tories should also say sorry today for desecrating our towns and countrywide.
    Mrs. Browning: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Liberal Democrats on Devon county council voted yes to a new town in my constituency?
    Mr. Brake: The hon. Lady has already given the answer to that question. She will be aware that the previous Secretary of State used bully-boy tactics to drive through planning applications, and I am certain that the current Secretary of State is no stranger to strong-arm tactics.
    I am grateful to the official Opposition for initiating this debate, because it gives me the opportunity to examine Labour's record. I have perhaps a more balanced view of what the Government have achieved so far than the official Opposition. The Government have abandoned predict and provide, which is good, but they have replaced it with plan, monitor and manage—or PMM. It is always difficult to know what acronyms stand for, and the view of many experts is that PMM is an unknown quantity.
    This Administration have set a higher target for brown-field development than the previous Administration, and that is a good decision. However, they have not so far indicated that they are willing to revise that figure upwards on the basis of the change in the household projections. I am sure that the Minister, when he responds, will explain why the Government cannot increase the 60 per cent. figure, but I understand that it was anticipated that 175,000 houses would be needed each year when the projection was for 4.4 million new households.
    It is now anticipated that 150,000 houses will be needed each year. Sixty per cent. of 175,000 is 105,000. Surely the Government will still be able to achieve 105,000 houses, even though it is now anticipated that only 3.8 million new households will exist. Therefore, in 10 years' time, when the Government anticipate hitting the 60 per cent. target, they will actually hit a 70 per cent. target, because 105,000 is 70 per cent. of 150,000. I hope that the Minister will tell the House that he is considering increasing the target.
    Mr. Raynsford indicated assent.
    Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for adopting the point that my hon. Friend the Member
    514
    for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made earlier. I wish the hon. Gentleman luck, because the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, who replied to my hon. Friend, totally ignored the point. The hon. Gentleman may have more luck with the Minister who will wind up the debate.
    Mr. Brake: The Minister has been nodding, so I hope that his reply will have some substance. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) highlighted the concern about the absence of any precise regulations covering the clearing of contaminated land. That is a major omission which the Government should address as soon as possible because without such regulations, developers will not be willing to develop brown-field sites.
    The Government have issued draft PPG3, which I accept is good in parts. However, it mentions the need to take into account the Government's latest household projections. Will the Minister explain whether that will lead to a bottom-up or a top-down approach to establishing the number of houses needed in each region? PPG3 requires further consideration. The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning quoted the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, but that organisation described the draft PPG3 in its current form as too sketchy. I hope that he will put some flesh on the bones of PPG3 shortly.
    PPG3 says that the sequential approach should give priority to the reuse of previously developed land, bringing back empty homes into use and promoting the conversion of empty buildings. Those are all very sensible aims, but why is there a complete absence of any mechanisms to achieve such worthy ends? For example, PPG3 does not include a green-field development tax, or VAT equalisation for new build and conversions. It is upbeat about urban design, but so far, the Government have not willed the means to achieve such lofty aims. Where will local authorities find the staff—and the money to pay them—to deal with the issue?
    What is the Government's role in relation to urban design? I understand that the Government have disbanded their urban design team. According to the Civic Trust, there is not a single person with sole responsibility for design in the DETR, although the Government managed to find £8 million for the Highways Agency to increase its maintenance programme. I understand also that the Government are not willing to fund the Urban Design Alliance, which is supported by many professional organisations. [Interruption.] If the Minister considers that to be rubbish, he can say so in his response, but that is the view of at least one significant organisation with an important role to play in urban design. The Government are paying lip service to good urban design, but that will not stop a single mock-Tudor mansion being built in this country. Providing staff and resources will.
    PPG3 should be an opportunity to meet the environmental challenges posed by new homes, which include a threat to dwindling water supplies in parts of the country and an increase in CO2 emissions. There is also the potential to use renewable energies in new housing stock, and a lot could be done in that respect. I am pleased that my local authority, the London borough of Sutton, is taking the lead on these matters and will soon install solar panels in some of its social housing—an action that I commend to the House.

    515
    The London borough of Sutton also supports a project approved by the Secretary of State to establish a zero-energy residential development. I understand that this is the first instance of the Secretary of State approving an application in which the local authority has accepted the second-lowest tender, rather then the lowest. The application was allowed to proceed because it was a sustainable development project. I welcome the Secretary of State's backing for that scheme.
    There is much to be done about building regulations, to improve energy conservation and the reuse of water. I hope that the Minister will say something about that, either today or when PPG3 is reissued. I hope too that he will spell out how PPG3 will be implemented. It is one thing to issue a document in draft and again after consultation, but it is another thing entirely to ensure that what is contained in the document is implemented.
    What is the Government's action plan for implementation? What training will be given to staff in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and in the relevant Government offices so that they understand what is in the document? What best practice guidance will be issued? What will the Government do to ensure that local authority decisions reflect the contents of PPG3?
    I look forward to the Minister's response to these important questions. I hope that he will be able to give some detailed explanations and reassurance on these matters.
    2.52 pm
    Mr. Peter Bradley: When I came into the Chamber this afternoon, I was half expecting Conservative Members to stage a break from their Thatcherite past. No doubt they have rewritten their speeches several times since Monday, but sadly, it seems to be business as usual. They have nothing new to say about housing, planning or the green belt.
    As my hon. Friend the Minister noted, this is the fifth time that this debate has been held in recent months, which makes it all the more surprising that the subject has been chosen for an Opposition day. I could not help but notice that there were never more than nine Back-Bench Conservative Members present during the opening speech by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). Two drifted away during his oration and—such were the rumours spreading through the House about the quality of the speech—one came in, then left again. No doubt that Conservative Member had far better things to do in the precincts of the House, given the modern Conservative party's greater interest in bloodletting than in housebuilding.
    As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) said, we have heard no apology for the Tory record during 18 years in office. In that time, we saw new lows in housing investment, ever-reducing numbers in social housing, record mortgage arrears and repossession rates, and spiralling levels of homelessness. The previous Government had no understanding of the need to integrate jobs with housing provision. They presided over a free market free-for-all—a NIMBY charter—in which there was housing for the few and exclusion for the many. It is to those few—that dwindling sector of the electorate—that today's Conservative party is pitching its appeal.
    516
    Conservative housing policy contributed to the pressure on the green belt about which Opposition Members now complain. That they have chosen this subject for debate shows how out of touch they are, in town and country alike.
    As has been noted, the number of Labour Members with rural and semi-rural constituencies is greater than the total number of Conservative Members, and greater than the total number of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members in rural seats put together. Last July, the rural group of Labour Members wrote to about 25 leading countryside and rural organisations to ask what they thought should be the Government's top five priorities in this Parliament. The organisations contacted were authoritative, and included bodies such as the former Rural Development Commission, the Countryside Commission, the County Councils Network, the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union, the National Association of Local Councils and the National Trust.
    None of those bodies referred to the green belt in response to our question about priorities, but there was a strong consensus about the need for modern, flexible planning regimes and for affordable housing in and for rural communities. The Conservative party in opposition may be as deaf to those priorities as it was in government, 'but they make up the real rural and housing agenda in this country.
    In 1990, the Rural Development Commission estimated that about 80,000 additional and affordable homes would be needed in rural communities in the five years to 1995. Fewer than 17,000 were provided under the previous Government, who provided neither the necessary funding nor the planning regime that would have made available the land supply for the development of that housing.
    Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Bradley: No, I want to make progress, as I know that other hon. Members want to contribute.
    Tory councils up and down the country set their face against the provision of social housing. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) is not present to hear that, although the average in England for the provision of social housing was 23 per cent., the figure was as low as 15 per cent. in rural districts, which were mainly Conservative-controlled, during the years of the Conservative Government. The matter was left to the market.
    In 1979 and 1990, surveys by the Department of the Environment, as it then was, found that one person in four in rural communities lived on the margins of poverty. In 1991, the Rural Development Commission estimated that about 40 per cent. of the rural community could not afford home ownership. Even so, between 1985 and 1990, 91,000 council homes in the countryside were sold under the right-to-buy provisions and not replaced. Indeed, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has estimated that most new private housing in the countryside was at the upper end of the price scale.
    The previous Government's policies encouraged migration into the countryside. That has led to the gentrification and geriatrification of rural communities, and forced up land and house prices. It has also forced out the rural poor, young and old alike, and meant that

    517
    rural homelessness spiralled upwards at a rate far in excess of the frightening levels evident in towns and inner cities.
    All that has applied pressure to housing in urban centres and the green belt, where young people from rural communities have been forced to migrate in search of homes and jobs. It has contributed to the undermining of rural communities and the breakdown of their social infrastructure. Without housing and employment for the next generation, who will send their children to the village school or buy their provisions at the village shop? That is why, under the previous Government, village schools were not considered viable and were closed, and why village shops have been in decline.
    Yet 10 million people live in the rural communities of this country. Of the 1 million homes that it has been predicted that they will need between 1991 and 2011, 500,000 will be generated in and by rural communities. No one argues against the idea that a policy to protect the green belt is important, but it is a delusion to think that somehow it will aid people living in rural communities.
    In a full page advertisement entitled "Affordable Homes is the Key to Sustainable Development", the RDC said:
    "If the current concern about development in the countryside leads to even tighter constraints, the situation will worsen for many rural people."
    The RDC has no axe to grind. It has come to an objective assessment of the needs of rural communities and how they should be met. Elsewhere, the RDC has also said:
    "We are concerned that many of the policy responses to the household growth debate adopt an environmentally biased interpretation of sustainable development which undermines the achievement of related social and economic objectives … From a rural perspective, therefore, urban concentration can exacerbate rather than combat social exclusion."
    There is a desperate need for proper recognition, by central and regional government, and by local authorities themselves, of the needs for new housing in rural communities. There is a desperate need, too, to increase the funding and assistance made available by the Housing Corporation for that purpose. There is a need for innovative approaches to the identification of land, and the funding of social and affordable housing in the countryside to overcome the diseconomies of scale, and the additional costs of land acquisition and building involved in such projects.
    There is an even more pressing need for a flexible and sensitive planning regime. Draft PPG3 goes some way towards providing a system under which land supply can become less problematic. I hope that the Green Paper will say something about making it possible for local authorities to define the tenure of the housing that they seek to provide to address local need.
    There is an urgent need for integrated and strategic planning. The regional development agencies will have a major role to play in ensuring that wherever jobs go, housing exists for people seeking them. Without both jobs and houses in local communities, people will migrate either to find employment or to find homes because there are none in their local communities.
    The need for jobs and housing requires a more flexible approach to planning in the countryside, and that is the way towards sustainable community life. That is the way to sustain the village shop and the local school. That is
    518
    how we can reduce dependency on both public and private transport in the countryside. It is the way in which to reduce the migration that distorts the demography of both rural and urban communities. It is also one means of reducing pressure on the green belt.
    Only so much can be achieved by recycling brown land. Infill development is important, and it can probably make a larger contribution than many people suspect. However, it is not of itself the answer. I am not just reconciled to the idea, but eager to see green fields developed for the community where such developments are needed, where there is local consent and consensus, and where the form and quality of the development is sensitive and appropriate. After years of dodging the problem, we should listen to the voice of rural communities, because that is what they are saying. We should show leadership in government.
    The Government's emerging housing and planning policies are making an important start on that crucial project. However, the reduction of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme from 6 per cent. to 2.3 or 2.4 per cent. is disappointing. Only 883 new homes were built in 98 districts last year, with 218 districts receiving no allocation. We need to address that point.
    We need proper local assessment of housing need in rural communities. There must be a rural element in the new deal for communities. We need more resources, and the reinstatement of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme to at least 6 per cent. A greater commitment is also required from the capital receipts initiative in rural communities.
    We are developing innovative partnerships between the private sector, local authorities, social landlords and funding institutions, and that development must be accelerated. We need a more flexible planning regime, and I hope that we will have one soon. We also need a greater sense of leadership at parish council level. Development in rural communities is controversial and it requires imagination and commitment.
    The Government must send town and parish councils the message that they are committed to their future. We have not done that with sufficient emphasis in previous consultation documents about the future of local government, and we must give parish councils the tools that they need to show the real leadership that we require of them in the countryside. A new planning regime is required which attaches more importance to consultation, consensus and consent.
    The Conservatives do themselves no favours, and do rural communities a great disservice, by submerging rural needs and legitimate aspirations in their crocodile tears for the green belt. The Government are talking to rural communities, and listening to them. A concerted start has been made on reducing the problems of homelessness and lack of housing in rural communities, but a great deal more remains to be done. It will not be easy to achieve the targets that we should be setting, but with a proper understanding of the problems, a commitment to address them and a sense of true partnership with rural communities, we will get an important job done.
    3.6 pm
    Mr. James Gray: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). Both

    519
    exposed their essentially urban, or suburban, outlook on this problem. I agree with the hon. Member for The Wrekin that it is important to find affordable housing in our villages. That is precisely why the Conservative Government abolished the right to buy from housing associations in small rural villages. Throughout our discussions on these matters, we have said that children of those who live in villages must be found affordable housing. Attempts to pillory the Conservative party on that point are misplaced. The hon. Gentleman addressed the rest of his speech towards finding more space for housing in rural areas.
    The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington speaks entirely from a suburban London standpoint. His main proposal was to provide more training for officials at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how to interpret PPG3. That is not an overwhelmingly important call. Perhaps it says more about the Liberal Democrats than anything else.
    Both hon. Members felt it odd that we should have chosen the subject of housing and the green belt for debate in the run-up to the local government elections. We did so for the very good reason that we alone fight the corner of the countryside against unreasonable development. As evidence of that, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington may care to consider that Councillor Eric Hodges, the Liberal Democrat chairman of a Wiltshire council committee considering these matters, was reported in the local paper this week as jettisoning his opposition to unattractive development between Swindon and Wootton Bassett. If he could have a bypass for the latter, his own town, he would be happy to accept the 4,500 houses involved. That is typical, of course, of the Liberal Democrats. They pay great lip service to preserving the countryside. but as soon as they see some opportunity—a bypass here, a bypass there—my goodness me, they give in to the Labour Government.
    This is the second opportunity that the Conservatives have had this week to demonstrate that we are the only people who care about the countryside. The first came on Tuesday, when we debated clause 2 of the Finance Bill and opposed the Government's absurd increase in the price of petrol, which is so damaging to my rural constituents. Today, we can demonstrate our real concern for the green belt. I welcome that opportunity as I am certain that the debate will be widely covered in local papers throughout the country. What we have to say will have a significant effect in the local government elections next Thursday.
    Let me turn to the overall household projection figures. When I was a special adviser to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), we said to officials—some of whom may well be listening this afternoon—that it was essential that they should find ways to revisit their original 4.4 million projection. Over a period of months they came back and said, "Terribly sorry, Minister, but there is absolutely no way that we can revisit the figures. We have gone over them in every possible way—backwards and forwards, upside and down. These are the figures. These are the statistical projections. There is nothing we can do about it."
    When I was on the Select Committee which recently looked into the matter—two or three other hon. Members in the Chamber today were there too—we again
    520
    cross-examined officials and Ministers backwards and forwards. We pressed them. We tried to say, "Surely these figures must be wrong." The message consistently came back, "Well, they may be wrong and we fear they are too low. We predict that the outcome is likely to be 5 million rather than 4.4 million, but we are certain of the absolute robustness of the 4.4 million figure." The Select Committee report on the matter goes to great lengths to say that 4.4 million is, indeed, the figure.
    It is surprising, therefore, to discover that the real figure is only 3.8 million. As my hon. Friends have already pointed out, it is extraordinary that the Government can come out with this figure, in the run-up to local government elections incidentally, but with no kind of arithmetic workings as to how they have reached it. They should know that when they do come out with the arithmetic in the autumn, we shall examine it robustly to see exactly how they reached that figure and exactly why they chose to come out with it at this time.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the two figures are based over different time periods?
    Mr. Gray: The point about time periods is not necessarily a good one, or if it is, the Government must tell us what the figure would increase to in the period up to 2016.
    We can bandy arguments about statistics across the Chamber all afternoon. The most important point is that if, indeed, the new household projections are decreased and if, under the 4.4 million figure, we could get 60 per cent. on to brown-field sites, presumably at 3.8 million we can get significantly more than that on to brown-field sites. I challenge the Minister to respond to that point later this afternoon. So far, he has been weak on everything he has said on this subject. The Select Committee described his evidence as, I think, vacuous and misleading. This afternoon we challenge him, if the projections are as low as his officials are now telling him, to say that he will increase the amount of housing that can be accommodated on brown-field sites.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that he went public in this House a few months ago to say that many people had expressed doubts about the validity of the figures, but he, having looked at them, accepted that they were soundly based? if that is the case, why is he not criticising himself for his own lack of judgment?
    Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for that reminder to us all. I was quoting the Select Committee report. As a member of the Select Committee, I naturally accepted what it said. I am amazed to hear that his officials have now overturned what the Select Committee said and what they themselves said only two or three years ago when I was a special adviser. Nevertheless, it is interesting. Doubtless the Minister will respond to the point during his speech.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Gray: My Whips tell me that I must not give way too often, so I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me if I crack on a bit. Perhaps he will have an opportunity to contribute shortly if I am reasonably brief in my remarks.

    521
    I want to refer in particular to my constituency and what is happening in Swindon, not merely because of the constituency interest, but because the Government's approach to the inexorable westward growth of Swindon is a litmus test of their approach to this problem. The Government will know that the Labour-controlled Swindon borough council together with the Liberal Democrat-controlled Wiltshire county council, reached a figure of 66,000 new houses for the county, of which 22,000 would be in the area around Swindon. That comes from a Labour borough, not a Conservative one. According to the new figures just produced, the total has increased to 70,000 houses for the county, of which 26,000 will be in and around Swindon. As a result it looks increasingly likely that the ever precious rural buffer zone between Swindon and my constituency may well be breached.
    In the Government's response to the Select Committee report, the Secretary of State said that he would look again at whether or not rural buffer zones should be increased to the strength of the green belt. I challenge the Minister to tell us what his thinking is on the subject of rural buffer zones. Will he reassure me and my constituents in rural north Wiltshire that the rural buffer zone around Swindon will now be strengthened, so that if these extra houses must be found by Wiltshire county council and Swindon borough council, they will not be built on the rural buffer zone between Swindon and my constituency?
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gray: I am sorry, but I am under time constraints. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I have been asked to be as short as I can.
    The Minister will know of the local view. The Western Daily Press headline states:
    "Prescott homes plan 'a threat to villages'."
    He will know that villages in my constituency have objected to the proposed modification structure plan. In particular, I think of Wootton Bassett, Purton, Lydiard Millicent and Lydiard Tregoze. All the towns and villages around the eastern border of my constituency are threatened by the ever westward sprawl of Swindon.
    I challenge the Minister to tell me what he intends to do with regard to Wiltshire and the threat from Swindon borough council. The Minister shakes his head to tell us that he will give us no indication at all. For legal reasons it may be wrong for him to comment at this stage of these considerations.
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman well knows that.
    Mr. Gray: I accept that point and, as the Minister says from a sedentary position, I well know that myself. It may be that he will not comment this afternoon, but he should know that eventually he will have to sit in judgment on these figures and the structure plan. The House will judge his commitment to both saving the green belt and the countryside by what he does to north Wiltshire.
    We are under threat not only from Labour-controlled Swindon expanding westwards, but from the Minister's projections and attitude to the countryside. If the Minister will not be specific on the subject of Swindon, I challenge him at least to be so robust in his remarks this afternoon
    522
    on the subject of the rural buffer zone that that will be taken into account by local planners—then I can tell my constituents in north Wiltshire that, contrary to what the Liberal Democrat leader of the committee has said, and contrary to what the Government are doing elsewhere in England, they are safe from Swindon.
    3.16 pm
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: It has been interesting to observe, over the five debates that we have now had on this issue, the evolution of the Conservative party from its previous stance—which I well remember as a leader of a city council and subsequently as an academic—to its present stance. If we were in the business of acronyms we might describe their original stance—most of their time in Government—as DAFT, or "develop anything for Tescos". That changed in the last period of the Conservative Government, when stewardship of the environment was in the hands of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), to TEPID, or "try to engage Parliament in debate". The present stance, which we see this afternoon, can be described as that of a BANANA party, or "build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything".
    I imagine that this matter has arisen as a result of the Conservative party's attempts to parochialise the debate, the purpose of which is twofold. First, this seems to be about the only debate that Conservative Members can advance without attempting to grab each other by the throat. Secondly, the Conservative party believes that there is some mileage, probably for local electoral purposes, in attempting to deal with the issue area by area and county by county. That rather overthrows the responsibility of this House which is, as my hon. Friends have said, to look at who needs homes where in the future. Can we throw away the provision that we need responsibly to make over the next 20 to 25 years, to ensure both that people who need homes have homes and that they are built in an orderly fashion and, most important in terms of the current debate, that development takes place in a sustainable fashion—that we do not build all over the countryside, but attempt to develop brown-field sites and within cities and towns where possible. The House has a grave responsibility and, frankly, the Opposition are shirking it and misrepresenting the case for political purposes.
    To make that misrepresentation, the Conservative party has had to resort to some strange readings of the figures and the debate. That can be for two reasons—either because Conservative Members do not understand the debate, or because they do, but choose to misrepresent it. I am not sure which one applies, but it seems to be a bit of both.
    Let us take the new projections. We have already heard an attempted straight comparison of one projection with the other, when in fact the projections have moved forward over a number of years, so are based on a different time frame. We have heard a suggestion that the figures should be exact, but forecasting is not an exact science. It is impossible to get figures exactly right in a forecast, as the Opposition suggest. It was suggested that because the total numbers have come down, the Government can revise the target upwards. That ignores the strong evidence to the Select Committee, which was known when both the new and the original figures came

    523
    out, that there are substantial regional variations in respect of migration, different tenures and, most importantly, the availability of brown-field sites.
    Mr. Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that point is recognised, because 60 per cent. is a national figure—an average that varies according to region?
    Dr. Whitehead: That is exactly the point. Within a total target, one must take account of several factors. That means that we must plan properly between regions. In any event, the figure for household growth is not necessarily the same as that for households. If we are serious, we must take account of all those factors rather than adopting the gimcrack, parochial approach of the Tory party.
    Brown-field sites in the south of England are in far shorter supply and need much more remediation than in the north of England, which appears to have a substantial supply. That means that we must consider the matter carefully region by region and analyse how to achieve the national target with different approaches in different parts of the country. Simply taking a figure, dividing it by a number for future household growth and using it to up the target misses the point entirely.
    Mr. Waterson: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Given his view on the figures, does he think that there is any prospect of the Government meeting even their present 60 per cent. target for brown-field development?
    Dr. Whitehead: The answer to that relates to the need to plan ahead over a period, as the previous Government demonstrated by failing miserably to meet their targets. To achieve a much higher target we must put policies in place, as the Government have been doing. I believe that that target is eminently achievable by careful analysis region by region and by developing policies that work towards it over time. It cannot be done in the way that the Opposition appear to suggest.
    The Opposition made the grand statement that they had raised the target to 66 per cent., as though that would make anything happen. There was even a dispute among Opposition Members about whether their target was 75, 66, 62 or 61 per cent. They changed their target within weeks. They remind me of a bunch of Trotskyist sects declaring the date of the world revolution when they cannot make it happen.
    The truth is that although the new housing projections are slightly lower, the crucial element missing from the argument is that the figures for the south have barely gone down at all. The pressure is on in the south of England, where there is a combination of fewer green-field sites and considerable immigration. That should make us realise that the necessary strategy is not fundamentally different for that part of the country. That is precisely set out in PPG3: we should build on brown-field sites where possible.
    I caution the House that setting up a register of brown-field sites will not solve the problem. Some brown-field sites are in the deep countryside, such as former mental hospitals and airfields. Building on such sites would lead to unsustainable deep rural communities
    524
    that would become commuter dormitories. We must consider urban and rural sites and how to combine them with a policy of urban renaissance and sustainability by minimising transport corridors and, wherever possible, adding to existing town and city developments so that their resources and transport facilities can be used. That would develop a sustainable pattern of housing, while providing the necessary number of houses to ensure that the House and the Government will be able to say that we have not mortgaged the future for the sake of a quick fix. That is our real task. We will not achieve it by skating over the figures and drawing easy conclusions.
    We cannot join the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) in saying that Plymouth council should tear up the sea front and build houses on it. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) said, we must do two things in analysing housing, both urban and rural. Urban areas require a denser pattern of housing, but they also need their green lungs. They must be liveable, or we will repeat in future generations the problems of previous ones with cities emptying and people moving to the countryside.
    In rural areas, we must ensure that communities remain viable and have affordable housing. If we do not, we will end up with a society of toffs living in rural areas, serviced by people bused out from towns to clean their houses and mend their cars. That is not sustainable either. It is a complex issue that I ask the Conservative party to take seriously. It is not a subject for short-term electoral advantage. It is an honourable, long-term enterprise to get this right for the future of our people. In 20 years, they will curse us if they do not have the housing that they need and if we have not developed it sustainably.
    3.27 pm
    Mr. John Wilkinson: We had a contribution of righteous indignation from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and one of admirable brevity from the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon), which I shall use as my model. He cited the efforts of a particularly public-spirited lady in his constituency who had helped preserve the green belt in Thorner. I thought of another equally admirable person—perhaps even more admirable, given the scope of his responsibilities—Mr. Ronald Smith, chairman of the London Green Belt Council, of which I have the honour to be president. Assiduity in addressing highly complex planning issues can achieve successful results.
    Notwithstanding the partisan contributions, I hope that we are all in this together. We have a duty and obligation to keep this a green and pleasant land. The pressures on the south-east, to which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) referred, are enormous. It is noteworthy that, in the revised projections for 1996 to 2021, the number of households in the south-east is expected to increase by no less than 26 per cent., or 900,000, and in London by 21 per cent., or 600,000. Those pressures are growing all the time and are accentuated, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, by migration from the north to the south for economic reasons. There is also migration for reasons of social demography, with people gravitating to the south, especially the south coast, to retire. There is inward migration from the influx of refugees and the legitimate immigration of the dependants of immigrants from

    525
    overseas. All those factors make the pressures on London and the south-east the greatest. We must pay particular attention to them.
    There are some aspects of the Government's policy as outlined in PPG3 of which I must be critical. An emphasis has been placed on transport corridors. In the Stevenage case, that was the justification for gobbling up large tracts of green belt and open countryside for the development of housing. In the south-east, the transport infrastructure needs are so great that the Government's emphasis can have a major impact.
    There is the Central Railway project to run freight and passenger trains from the north-west and the midlands along the Chiltern line, across London and to the channel tunnel. If it is constructed, with passenger stations along the line, it could provide an opportunity under the provisions in PPG3 for new housing communities to be established in a particularly sensitive green belt in a corridor beyond the M25. There are plans for a transport exchange associated with the projected road-rail freight facility at Colnbrook and for the Parkway station near the M25 with the Great North Eastern Railway. All around the M25, there are pressures on the countryside and green belt associated with transport facilities.
    The Government say in PPG3 that facilities for car parking and the density of housing should be such that more emphasis is placed on public transport than the motor car, so the risk of public transport facilities impinging on housing development to permit more extensive housing in areas that otherwise would be countryside becomes greater all the time.
    There is also a predisposition to allow existing communities to expand at the edges, rather than to permit the development of new towns or communities in the countryside. This is all very well. I understand the thinking behind it, although there are exceptions to it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton graphically exposed in the case of the new town in east Devon, but the policy has grave implications for the London area. There could be a tendency to allow development all the way to the M25. We already see development around the M25 and it is but a short step to take it even further into the countryside beyond.
    I urge Her Majesty's Government to live up to their rhetoric and pay much more attention to urban renaissance. There is a great deal of talk about it, although how it is to be achieved is not explained. At the same time, there is talk—this is the contradictory aspect—of more infilling, more use of derelict land and more use of compulsory purchase powers, which always gets me worried. Socialist local authorities in London have used those powers in a malign fashion more for social and political engineering than for creating communities in which there is a good balance of open space and housing. If we put all that together, there is a real danger that the urban renaissance envisaged by the Government will not provide the quality of life which they claim is so important in their planning document.
    For Londoners, the preservation of metropolitan green belt is of immense importance. No other tract of green belt is more under pressure. I urge the Government to realise that there is green belt not only outside the M25 and around Greater London, but within it—the Harefield ward in my constituency has the greatest amount of green belt in the capital. The green belt contains not only sites
    526
    of special scientific interest or nature reserves such as Ruislip woods, but other sites: some may be inferior countryside, but they are important to the balance between the town and rural England. They are the green lung on which our communities depend.
    3.35 pm
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: This has been a good debate. Some Opposition Members, including Ministers, have made the criticism that this is the fifth such debate that the Opposition have called. I have some bad news for Ministers. There will be more of these debates. We will keep dragging them to the House so that they can explain the fiasco.
    Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Waterson: In a minute. I should like to get through my first paragraph or so.
    The Government have finally produced draft PPG3 and the revised household projections, but they have dithered and delayed for two years before so doing. That means that we have to look forward to see what the prospects of the Government's policies working are and backwards to see what damage has already been done by their drift and inaction. All that the Minister could do was stagger from meaningless slogan to meaningless slogan.
    The way in which the revised household projections have been handled is particularly curious. Only last year, a Select Committee described the previous estimate of 4.4 million as
    "the best one there is."
    At last September's party conference, the Minister for London and Construction said that all previous estimates of household figures had fallen short of the actual number of households. Until fairly recently, unnamed Ministers were hinting that the figure of 4.4 million was, if anything, on the low side and numbers such as 5 million or even 5.5 million were muttered darkly. Then the new thinking was rushed out at about the same time as PPG3, but without the detailed data which have been promised for later in the year. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) made a brave, but doomed, effort to defend the figures.
    What of the figures themselves? My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) spoke with his usual authority on the issue. I am sure that the Minister accepts that small variations in underlying assumptions such as interest rates and GDP could make a dramatic difference to the projections. I understand that the figures make no allowance for economic factors. The Minister for London and Construction is looking at me as though I am telling him something new.
    We have already heard about the shameful decisions made in Stevenage, West Sussex, Newcastle and Sutton Coldfield. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) that two new towns are being dropped in the middle of east Devon. Will Ministers now reverse all or some of those decisions? It seems that, if the figures are correct, they were based on outdated information.
    We have heard how county structure plans have been forced through on the basis of the old PPG3. The Council for the Protection of Rural England has pointed out that,

    527
    in the south-east, 800,000 of the 900,000 houses planned between 1991 and 2016 have already been built, or sites have been earmarked for them.
    What of the future? As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) eloquently said, it is a crying shame that the Government did not take this opportunity to increase their target for brown-field development. The revised estimate of 3.8 million homes means that the Government are planning to build 2.3 million homes on previously developed land. Even with the Government's new projections, a 60 per cent. target for new brown-field development would still mean that 1.5 million homes were built on green-field sites. If they meant what they said before, the Government could still build 2.6 million homes on brown-field sites, so that only 1.2 million would need to be placed on land not previously developed. [Interruption.] I wish that, instead of keeping up a running commentary on my speech, Ministers would address these genuine problems.
    The plain fact is that, even with the reduced household projections, there will be a one-fifth increase in new households in England over 25 years. On the Government's own target, which they are failing— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Hon. Members must be quiet. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the House.
    Mr. Waterson: On the Government's own target, which—incidentally—they are failing to meet, at least 40 per cent. of new development will be on green-field sites. In his opening speech, the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning wholly failed to address that point. When his colleague the Under-Secretary winds up the debate, the Government will have a second chance to respond to the points that we have made and to take up the cry from the Opposition and from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake).
    The chairman of Countryside Properties has claimed that 40 per cent. of household growth will take place in the south-east, which has only 11 per cent. of the brown-field sites—a point made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). It is estimated that, during the past five years, 300,000 acres of meadows and grassland have disappeared—an area roughly the size of Bedfordshire—yet, at any one time, about 750,000 homes lie empty in England and Wales.
    PPG3 sets much store by urban extensions. Will the existing infrastructure be able to cope? Will not some of those developments, designed to reduce green-field development, actually encroach on the green belt—a point made powerfully in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). After all, the Government have already proved by their actions that they regard the green belt as a pretty elastic concept.
    Substantial costs can be inherent in brown-field sites. Who will bear them? Who will spend money on testing the viability of sites, dealing with such issues as contamination? The Government will not do so—why should developers? Have local authorities the money to do so? The Local Government Association has already pointed out that an extra burden will be imposed on
    528
    planning authorities resulting from the sequential approach, and that councils will have to "jump through hoops" to show that a particular proposal is unsustainable. However, the household projections appear to assume that the Government's much-vaunted policy for urban renaissance will fail, and that the exodus from our cities will continue. I should like the Minister to deal with that point specifically. Will he also confirm that his projections only show migration 15 years ahead?
    Finally, where does social housing fit into that agenda? We heard about that from the hon. Members for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) and for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley). The Secretary of State told Housing Today that he did not know what proportion of the new households were likely to need social housing. He lamely said:
    "That's an area of housing policy that depends on a great deal of policies that we are currently looking at."
    We all know that the right hon. Gentleman has a way with words. No doubt he had in mind the current review of housing benefit, which is causing such concern—especially for housing associations and those who provide them with private finance. The Under-Secretary's views may be no more reliable, because the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee referred to his evidence on the provision of social housing as "vacuous and disingenuous".
    Shelter points out that the new projections do not take account of existing need. The figures for the south-east seem to mask actual cuts in social housing. As we all know, there is already a serious regional mismatch in social housing; internal migration will only make a bad situation worse. The latest projections show that the drift from north to south is accelerating. The National Housing Federation estimates that 95,000 affordable homes will be needed each year between 2001 and 2016. The federation contends that there is an existing backlog of 600,000 homes and that 40 per cent. of the new households will be on low incomes—that is the key point. What price social exclusion now?
    It is difficult to avoid the sad fact that, in planning and housing matters, far from having joined-up government, we have a Government who can only be described as dysfunctional. I ask the House to support the motion.
    3.44 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The danger in any debate is that it may generate more heat than light. Some of that heat may come from the perfectly legitimate desire of hon. Members to pursue issues on behalf of their constituents. Sadly, however, some heat comes in the form of hot air generated solely to make party political points. There has been rather too much of that today from Opposition Members, especially those on the Front Bench. There has not been much informed debate.
    On a subject as important as the future of housing and the shape of our towns, cities and countryside in the future, it is important that we remain focused on the real issues. That is what the Government are trying to do. At the start of the debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning reiterated our firm policies on housing and the green belt. He described our achievements to date in addressing the challenges posed by household growth. Hon. Members have raised

    529
    points in this debate to which I shall try to respond, but I also want to look ahead to the further action that we have in hand.
    Most important is carrying forward the new planning policy guidance on housing—PPG3—which was issued recently. I am pleased to tell the House that it was broadly welcomed by everyone who has thought seriously about how we can reconcile many of the difficult issues that must be reconciled if we are to provide for the housing needs of our country, while protecting and respecting our countryside. At present, PPG3 is out for consultation. It sets out how we should try to determine the location of new housing, and the priority that should be given to using existing developed sites and existing housing stock in urban areas—encouraging recycling of previously developed land. It underlines very clearly our desire to ensure that encroachment on green-field sites is kept to a minimum.
    That is reinforced by our national target, which is that 60 per cent. of new housing is to be on previously developed land, or provided through conversions, over the next 10 years. We hope that it will be possible to better that target both nationally and, where possible, regionally. In contrast to the Opposition, we do not pluck figures out of thin air and hope to be able to deliver them. When we set targets, we aim to deliver them. When we give pledges, or manifesto commitments, we deliver them. That is the difference between Labour and the Conservatives and that is why Labour is the party of government and the Conservatives are the party of opposition.
    Mr. Gray: Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for the Minister to tell us why he told Planning Week that a 60 per cent. target would be a "recipe for disaster" and that there was "absolutely no doubt" that the only realistic way to meet the housing figure was to develop new towns and settlements. Why did he say that to Planning Week in 1997? Apparently, he did not believe it.
    Mr. Raynsford: No, I do believe it. The hon. Gentleman was obviously not listening during the previous debate on this subject two months ago. At that time, I responded to an intervention from one of his hon. Friends by explaining that that figure was plucked out of thin air by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, at the very tail end of a Conservative Government who were limping towards defeat and were trying to pull something out of the hat. We did not believe that it was right or responsible for a Government who had devastated the countryside by allowing development to offer death-bed repentances by plucking out of thin air figures that had no justification. We have carried out a serious analysis of what is feasible. We did not commit ourselves to the 60 per cent. target until we were sure that it could be delivered. That is the difference between the Labour Government and the Conservative Opposition.
    Another key issue, to which the Opposition should listen, is the establishment of the new national land use database. Believe it or not, until now—despite the 18 years during which the Conservatives were in power—there has been no consistent system for recording and making use of information about land in urban areas that might be available for redevelopment. The Conservatives talked about it, but they did nothing
    530
    about it. The Labour Government—[Interruption.]— I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones).
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mrs. Fiona Jones: On behalf of my constituents, I take this opportunity to say that I welcome the Government's proposals. I know that all my constituents welcome the fact that the Government will build on brown-field sites instead of on green-field sites.
    Mr. Raynsford: I welcome my hon. Friend's comment and, above all, I welcome her back to the Chamber. I am delighted that, at the first opportunity, she is back here speaking for her constituents.
    I was explaining that, in contrast to the previous Government, the Labour Government were acting to identify the scope for urban regeneration. The first phase of the new national land use database will come on stream in the very near future. I expect that to be a most important tool for local authorities. In the longer term, the Government intend to expand and maintain the database to cover all land and uses of land, and for it to be publicly accessible.
    However much new development is put into existing towns and cities, consistent with sustainable development objectives and the aim of making our urban areas better places to live, it is a plain fact that some new development must be on green-field sites. Indeed, some green-field development is essential to breathe new life into certain communities, especially in rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) was right to stress the importance of appropriate housing, especially social housing developments, in certain rural communities which will die without that provision. We have to get the balance right and assist opportunities for sustainable development and for meeting social and economic needs in rural communities. It is vital that new development is of the right type, in the right place and on the right scale, which is why we place such emphasis on developments being sustainable.
    Mrs. Browning: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Raynsford: No. The hon. Lady spoke in the debate and I dealt with her points earlier.
    Getting development in the right location lies at the heart of planning policy for transport. In the next few months, we shall consult on a revised draft of PPG13. That will complement the objectives, set out in our White Paper on the future of transport, of reducing congestion and pollution and promoting an approach that locates development where it is accessible by a choice of means, including public transport, so reducing reliance on the private car.
    There is a range of options for meeting development needs that cannot be met within existing urban areas. One of the most sustainable patterns of such new development may be in urban extensions, especially where they would take advantage of the existing under-utilised infrastructure, especially transport and other vital services. That inevitably creates a tension. That tension was considered, but not resolved, by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. In its report,

    531
    the Committee endorsed the preference for urban extensions, but, in a separate recommendation, sought to maintain inner green belt boundaries unchanged.
    There is a real tension in that respect, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) emphasised. We have tried to address that tension in PPG3 by making it clear that, in certain cases where it is desirable in terms of urban extension and sustainability, there may be a case for reconsidering green-belt boundaries. However, that must be the exception to the rule. It must not be undertaken for any other reason and the presumption must normally be against development in the green belt. The Government are trying to be responsible in facing up to the difficult issues thrown up by the development challenge, especially in areas such as Cambridge and Cambridgeshire where, for good economic reasons, there is great pressure to meet the needs of the burgeoning economy and to provide more accommodation for the people who work in the area.
    Mr. Lansley: I do not invite the Minister to comment on the particular circumstances of Cambridge, but ask him to note that we are not talking exclusively about the sustainability of the area or the availability of a public transport corridor. The simple fact is that the Cambridge green belt is one of those green belts that are designed to protect the unique setting of an historic city. It would be wrong to disregard that important aspect of green belts.
    Mr. Raynsford: I accept entirely the hon. Gentleman's point. I should point out that the alternative promoted by some, which is to leap-frog the green belt and develop new settlements beyond it, might have other disadvantages, such as generation of increased traffic. That is why I stress that the issue is a difficult one that does not lend itself to glib answers. It must be considered seriously and rigorously and we must be conscious of the whole range of issues, including the protection of the countryside and sustainability, when seeking solutions. The hon. Gentleman will understand why I cannot say more about the specific case that he raises.
    Mr. Waterson: I agree that the issue is important, but does the Minister accept that, by making an exception of one difficult case, he sets a planning precedent that might be used in respect of other encroachments in the green belt?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am highly conscious of the fact that any message to the effect that the Government are relaxing green belt policy would be disastrous, and we are sending no such message. We have no intention of encouraging inappropriate development in the green belt, and we certainly do not wish to emulate the previous Government's record. In their last year in office, the Conservative Government released for development more than 700 hectares of green belt; and released on appeal—on the Secretary of State's own decision—500 further hectares of green belt.
    We have a responsibility both to those who are inadequately housed and to the next generation, many of whom have already been born, to provide the framework to enable an adequate supply of good-quality housing; but housing is not an isolated human need. The people who
    532
    live in those houses need access to a range of employment opportunities, good-quality services and other facilities. We want new development to be well designed and to accord in its own right with sustainable development principles, such as accessibility by a choice of means of transport which allow less reliance on the motor car.
    The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) made an entirely unfounded allegation that the Government were not serious about urban design. Nothing could be further from the truth: we have laid enormous emphasis on urban design, not only through the guidance that we have issued or the speeches that we have made, but through practical action. Measures such as the designation of new millennium villages, as my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) described, are part of our positive efforts to encourage and promote the highest quality design in new developments, so as to demonstrate what can be done. We also have a responsibility to preserve the countryside, and we are determined to maintain our efforts in that respect in the years ahead.
    The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) seemed wholly confused about the figures, as did several other hon. Members. The Opposition motion reveals that confusion by referring to the Government's
    "failure to meet even their own targets for new building on brownfield sites".
    The most recent figures available on development on green-field sites compared with brown-field sites relate to 1996. Anyone with the slightest political knowledge will know that that was not a year in which the Labour party was in office; therefore, the record is that of the previous Government. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman made such an elementary mistake.
    The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred to the Government bullying Devon. As I pointed out, it is some bullying when the Government allow the county council 7,200 fewer homes than the previous Government, of whom she was a member, wanted to impose on it.
    Mrs. Browning: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Raynsford: No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady.
    The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked why, if the projected figure was now 3.8 million rather than 4.4 million, the 60 per cent. target could not be increased to 70 per cent. That implies a rather mechanistic view, reminiscent of predict and provide. We do not go straight from projections to household figures—that would be predict and provide. Instead, we intend to interpret the figures carefully and allow the regional authorities to do so as well.
    I repeat: we want to do the best that can be achieved, and the targets that we have set are demanding. The 60 per cent. target will be difficult to deliver: the previous Government did not get anywhere close to it—their record was abominable—but we intend to get as close as possible. We shall be prudent and set targets that we believe can be reached. We are determined to deliver on those targets, and we shall try to exceed them if possible.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) revealed why he is such a valued member of the Environment, Transport and Regional

    533
    Affairs Committee when he identified exactly the kinds of principles that are important in achieving sustainable development objectives. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who has done much to protect the green belt—and many hon. Members on both sides of the House respect him for that—seemed, surprisingly, not to be keen on transport corridors. I understand his concerns, but I put it to him that there is simply no alternative if we are to ensure sustainable development without allowing sprawl into the countryside, which would be a serious mistake.
    This debate has not done the official Opposition any credit. They are currently in apologise-and-move-on mode, but today they did not even reach the point of apologising. I put it to the Conservatives that, until they apologise for their appalling record in government, they will have no chance of being anything other than the Trotskyist sect of which my hon. Friend the Member for Test said they were reminiscent. What a contribution!
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 288.

    Division No. 158]

    [4 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Gray, James

    Amess, David

    Green, Damian

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Grieve, Dominic

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Baldry, Tony

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Bercow, John

    Hammond, Philip

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Blunt, Crispin

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Boswell, Tim

    Horam, John

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Brady, Graham

    Key, Robert

    Brazier, Julian

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Burns, Simon

    Lansley, Andrew

    Butterfill, John

    Leigh, Edward

    Cash, William

    Letwin, Oliver

    Chope, Christopher

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Clappison, James

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

    Loughton, Tim

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    (Rushcliffe)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Cran, James

    Madel, Sir David

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

    Malins, Humfrey

    & Howden)

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Duncan, Alan

    Moss, Malcolm

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Norman, Archie

    Faber, David

    Paice, James

    Fallon, Michael

    Paterson, Owen

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Pickles, Eric

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Prior, David

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Randall, John

    Fraser, Christopher

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Gale, Roger

    Robathan, Andrew

    Garnier, Edward

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Gibb, Nick

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Gill, Christopher

    Ruffley, David

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    St Aubyn, Nick

    534

    Shepherd, Richard

    Walter, Robert

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Wardle, Charles

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Soames, Nicholas

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Whittingdale, John

    Spring, Richard

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Steen, Anthony

    Wilkinson, John

    Swayne, Desmond

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Syms, Robert

    Woodward, Shaun

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Yeo, Tim

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Mr. Oliver Heald and

    Trend, Michael

    Mr. Tim Collins.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cotter, Brian

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Cousins, Jim

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Cranston, Ross

    Allen, Graham

    Crausby, David

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Cummings, John

    Ashton, Joe

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Austin, John

    Dalyell, Tam

    Barnes, Harry

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Bayley, Hugh

    Darvill, Keith

    Beard, Nigel

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Davidson, Ian

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Dawson, Hilton

    Benton, Joe

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Blackman, Liz

    Denham, John

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Dismore, Andrew

    Blizzard, Bob

    Dobbin, Jim

    Borrow, David

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Doran, Frank

    Brake, Tom

    Dowd, Jim

    Breed, Colin

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Burgon, Colin

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Efford, Clive

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Ennis, Jeff

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Follett, Barbara

    Cann, Jamie

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Caplin, Ivor

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Casale, Roger

    Galloway, George

    Caton, Martin

    Gapes, Mike

    Cawsey, Ian

    Gardiner, Barry

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Clapham, Michael

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Goggins, Paul

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Clelland, David

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Clwyd, Ann

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Grocott, Bruce

    Cohen, Harry

    Grogan, John

    Coleman, Iain

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Colman, Tony

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Connarty, Michael

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Cooper, Yvette

    Healey, John

    Corbett, Robin

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Heppell, John

    Hesford, Stephen

    535

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    McWalter, Tony

    Hill, Keith

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hinchliffe, David

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hoey, Kate

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Hood, Jimmy

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Hope, Phil

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Martlew, Eric

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Maxton, John

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Meale, Alan

    Hutton, John

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Miller, Andrew

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Jamieson, David

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Mountford, Kali

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Mudie, George

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Mullin, Chris

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Keetch, Paul

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    O'Neill, Martin

    Kemp, Fraser

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Khabra, Piara S

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Kidney, David

    Pearson, Ian

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Pendry, Tom

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Pickthall, Colin

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Pike, Peter L

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Plaskitt, James

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Pollard, Kerry

    Laxton, Bob

    Pond, Chris

    Leslie, Christopher

    Pope, Greg

    Levitt, Tom

    Pound, Stephen

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Linton, Martin

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Livingstone, Ken

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Lock, David

    Purchase, Ken

    Love, Andrew

    Radice, Giles

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Rammell, Bill

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Raynsford, Nick

    (Makerfield)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    McDonnell, John

    Rendel, David

    McIsaac, Shona

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Rooker, Jeff

    McNulty, Tony

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Rowlands, Ted

    536

    Roy, Frank

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Ruddock, Joan

    Stunell, Andrew

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Salter, Martin

    (Dewsbury)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Sawford, Phil

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Tipping, Paddy

    Sheerman, Barry

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Twigg, Derek(Halton)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Tyler, Paul

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Vaz, Keith

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Soley, Clive

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Spellar, John

    Wills, Michael

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Winnick, David

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wise, Audrey

    Stevenson, George

    Wood, Mike

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Worthington, Tony

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Wyatt, Derek

    Stott, Roger

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Mr. Kevin Hughes and

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Mr. Clive Betts.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the Government's continued commitment to protecting the countryside and promoting an urban renaissance, and maintaining tight planning controls over the Green Belt and other designated green spaces; recognises that the Government's decentralised and integrated policy approach is helping to achieve more sustainable and equitable patterns of urban and rural development; welcomes the Government's commitment to increase the proportion of new housing on previously-developed land in urban areas, smaller towns and villages from 40 per cent in the mid-1980s to 60 per cent; recognises the benefits of replacing the previous "predict and provide" approach to the issue of household growth with a more flexible "plan, monitor and manage" system; and believes that the Government's inter-linked policies for urban regeneration and protection of the countryside will enhance the quality of life for people in both rural and urban areas.

  Industry and Employment
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): We now come to the next debate. [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members should be quiet in the Chamber, and the House must come to order. Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.13 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I beg to move,
  That this House regrets the way the Government is making it too dear to make things in Britain; condemns the tax increases, increases in regulation and the poor climate for industry brought about by present policies; highlights the factory closures and 250,000 forecast job losses feared by the trade unions; condemns the New Deal for young people, which has failed to reduce youth unemployment, has disappointed employers and requires radical change if it is to stop wasting billions of pounds of taxpayers' money; and recommends a change of policy to avoid a prolonged and damaging industrial collapse and consequent rising industrial unemployment.
  The House will be aware that I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members' Interests. I am not speaking on behalf of those businesses or at their request; I speak on behalf of all British business and industry.
  In our motion, we say that we regret the way in which the Government are making it too dear to make things in Britain. We condemn the tax increases, the increases in regulation and the poor climate for industry brought about by the Government's policies. We highlight the factory closures and the 250,000 jobs that the trade unions forecast will be lost from industry in the months ahead. We condemn the new deal for young people, which has failed to reduce youth unemployment. Indeed, that figure is now falling less quickly than it was under the successful Conservative policies that the Government ditched. The scheme now needs radical change to avoid more damage being done and more money being wasted. I ask the House to forbear on the new deal because my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who will wind up the debate, will put the full case on the new deal.
  I want to do justice to the parlous plight that industry faces. The debate is particularly timely because I have learned grave news from the north-east which the House should know and discuss as it breaks. We have heard this afternoon that Siemens, which so recently closed a microchip plant in the north-east, is about to open a new microchip facility near Paris. I hope that the Government will now apologise for misleading the House, the constituents of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and those of the Prime Minister.
  When the closure was announced, the Government were categoric and said, "The work is not going elsewhere because there are no types of microchip that can be made in the north-east that we can secure. The market is saturated. It is a world problem; it is nothing to do with Britain." Already this afternoon, trade unionists, workers and people who have been sacked from Siemens in the north-east have gone on record saying that they have the building, the skills, the people and the wish to succeed, and they would like the chance to make the microchips that will be made near Paris. They cannot do that because they have a Labour Government, who have priced them out of the market and whose policies have done terrible damage to the Secretary of State' s constituents. Day after day, week after week. more factories close and more jobs
  538
  are lost. Now that problem is in the Secretary of State's backyard, and we have caught the Government misleading the House and the public.
  Mr. Alan Campbell: Siemens is in my constituency. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the company decided, last summer, to withdraw from north Tyneside because of its failure to develop a joint venture, as most microchip plants around the world have done, to guarantee a market for that product? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that, in a statement last summer, Siemens explained that its decision to pull out of north Tyneside had nothing to do with the Government's policies but was due to the collapse of the microchip market in the far east, which meant that the joint venture destined to come to north Tyneside went to the far east?
  Mr. Redwood: What a wriggle! However, the hon. Gentleman has confirmed my case. He says that a joint venture went to the far east, and I was saying that it is too dear to make things in Britain because of the Government's policies, so companies are going elsewhere. We now learn that an important new facility will be located in Paris, which is much closer to home and is an area with which we ought to be able to compete. Why cannot we compete with Paris? Because the Government's policies have priced us out of the market. Their taxes, their regulations, their exchange rate and their interest rate are all that we forecast, and, unfortunately, our forecasts have come true. I do not want British industry to be destroyed, but I said that it would happen, and it is happening.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): Let us have some facts, rather than the prejudice on which the right hon. Gentleman's statements have been based. Will he confirm that Siemens's decision was to set up a joint venture with a company that is already located just outside Paris? Will he confirm the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), in whose constituency Siemens is based, that the company was unable to find a joint venture in north Tyneside for the simple reason that potential partnerships were already located on the continent?
  Will the right hon. Gentleman now start to address the real issues of the Siemens case, rather than relying on prejudice? Prejudice will not help people in the north-east of England and, more importantly, it says more about his failure to lead for the Conservative party on trade and industry matters than anything else.
  Mr. Redwood: That last criticism was wide of the mark and revealed how desperate the Secretary of State has become. The people whom he represents, the constituents of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) and I know that there is a new, purpose-built facility sitting empty in the north-east of England. They know that Siemens was committed to that region because of Conservative policies and is now pulling out under Labour policies. They know that Siemens had a Government grant, which it welcomed, but it does not now think that the grant is sufficient to make up for the cost burden in Britain. They know that if, Siemens wanted to launch a joint venture, it could be done, because the work force, the factory and the

  539
  Government grant are available—all the conditions needed, except for an exchange rate, an interest rate and a set of Government policies that make sense.
  The Secretary of State must understand that a competitive devaluation is under way from the continent of Europe. We are getting the thin end of the wedge on that, and the Government's policies have made Britain the centre for closure, and France and Germany the centre for those new developments.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Redwood: I willingly give way to the rest of the Government.
  Mr. Keetch: Liberal Democrat Members are deeply sorry that Siemens is going. In the right hon. Gentleman's perception, what is the reason that Siemens is relocating in France instead of coming to Britain? Is it the fact that France is joining economic and monetary union or the fact that France has high social costs, as he would perceive them?
  Mr. Redwood: I have explained that the competitive devaluation of the euro—therefore, France's membership of EMU—allied to the high-cost policies being followed by the British Government, obviously lie behind the switch. The numbers do not add up in the north-east, thanks to the Government. They do add up, relatively, in Paris because of the change of exchange rate and the extra costs in Britain.
  We have said that, at some point, Britain would have imported enough of the high costs from the continent to make such a switch all too likely. We have now reached that point.
  Mr. John Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the news that he has just relayed to the House is especially grave in the light of the fact that there have been 7,500 reported job losses in the north and north-east of England since July 1998, and that, in the first three months of this year, there has been a 29 per cent. increase in business bankruptcies in the north-east—the area represented by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was hoping to mention later the way in which the disaster has been spreading throughout the north-east region. Siemens is just the biggest and best-known closure, but there have been many others.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has yet seen the May edition of "CBI News"—which contains a smiling picture of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It says that costs of £4.6 billion extra have been imposed on industry simply as a result of the working time directive and the minimum wage, before we get into all the other legislation that takes effect from 1 April. That figure of £4.6 billion is the Department of Trade and Industry's own figure.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend and many of my Back-Bench colleagues have consistently warned that
  540
  even well-intentioned legislation can do grave damage. I am sure that the Government meant well by the minimum wage legislation but, unfortunately, it is not much good having wage protection if one loses one's job as a result. That is happening to too many workers.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: What possible logical consistency is there between the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that companies are transferring to France at the moment because of additional on-costs, and the argument that he usually uses—that we should resist further integration within the European Union because of other countries' uncompetitive situation with regard to social on-costs?
  Mr. Redwood: Those are entirely consistent propositions. I am saying that, if we had stayed with the level of social on-costs under the Conservatives and the level of exchange rate that we then had, we would be more competitive. We were very competitive then. Investment came here; it did not go to the continent. During the past two years, we have warned that, if the pound were allowed to go too high and the euro too low, and if too many of the additional costs that continental countries already enjoyed were imported into this country, a point might come at which a switch-over would begin. We are now witnessing the start of that switch-over.
  If the Government simply heap on more costs, more regulations and more taxes, the switch will get worse. There will be more closures. If they allow the pound to rise further and keep a high pound and high interest rates, more factories will close. More companies will move to the continent. That is the way it works.
  The Secretary of State says that he believes in putting wealth creation before wealth distribution. I should like to see some evidence of that. He says that he has understood the free enterprise revolution launched successfully by the Conservatives in the 1980s, but he does not seem to have a clue how markets work, and he and his right hon. Friends seem to be amazed when Siemens pulls out of this country and sets up in Paris.
  Indeed, I have the words of the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who, when I said that I feared that the closure of the Siemens plant on north Tyneside meant that business was being diverted elsewhere, said that it had nothing to do with conditions in Britain. He said that the Siemens management had cited the collapse of the world market in semiconductor products. He said that that was the only reason for the closure, and that one would not see that work, or work like it, being done elsewhere; the work had gone completely. Now, a different type of chip, which can be made in Britain, will be made near Paris, when the Secretary of State's local work force would love to have the chance to do so.
  If the Secretary of State will not take my views seriously, I hope that he will take seriously the views that the local Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union official expressed when he said today:
  "this is an insult to the people of Tyneside"
  and that Siemens should return and use the superb factory that it has. I hope that the Secretary of State will meet him and his friends and colleagues and try to do something about it at this late stage. There must be a change of policy, which might start to change the mind of industry about Britain.

  541
  Our charge, this afternoon, is that the Government do not care about industry. They say that they do, but everything that they do makes industry's plight worse. They put interest rates up too high, making it too dear to borrow money to expand a business. They put the pound up and kept it up, making it too dear to export. They passed huge increases in business taxes, making it too dear to make things in Britain, taking money out of business that could have been used to create new jobs. They have heaped regulation on top of regulation, making it too dear to employ people in some places in Britain.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: Such as?
  Mr. Redwood: Hon. Members ask, "Such as?" The minimum wage, the working time directive and employment relations legislation are all increasing costs.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: We have heard many accusations this afternoon, some of them totally unbelievable. I would love to see the right hon. Gentleman's diary, so that I could check which companies he talks to, because when I meet representatives of the leading companies, they all tell me that this is still the best country to invest in and to do business in, and that they like the environment that the Government have created.
  The right hon. Gentleman is very slippery about many of these things, but will he answer one question? If the Conservatives ever returned to power, would they abolish the minimum wage?
  Mr. Redwood: I have endlessly stated a very clear position. We oppose the national minimum wage. We urged the Government not to do it. We will set out the measures that we intend to repeal in the next Parliament when we launch our manifesto. I have also made it crystal clear that there are several ways of dealing with the damage to jobs done by the minimum wage. It could be repealed, or it could be frozen—one could limit the damage by not increasing it, instead of destroying more jobs.
  What are the Government going to do about the minimum wage? Will they increase it by wages, by prices or not at all? Will they increase it annually, semi-annually or biannually?
  Mr. Byers: Does the shadow Trade Secretary disagree with the shadow Chancellor that a Tory Government would put the minimum wage on hold?
  Mr. Redwood: We have stated exactly the same policy—that we shall announce our clear intentions for the next Parliament on the eve of that Parliament, when we are fighting a general election about it. Both the shadow Chancellor and I opposed the introduction of the minimum wage and warned that it would do damage. We take no joy in seeing the damage that it is doing. We take no joy in seeing the fiddles that are limiting the damage—there are now lots of ways round it, because the legislation was so badly drafted. However, we must return to the attack today, when we see industry in chaos and crisis under the Government.
  Judy Mallaber: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman said that, if the Opposition ever got back
  542
  into government, they would either repeal or freeze the minimum wage. Can he confirm that he is considering those two options only?
  Mr. Redwood: No. I am considering a range of options, but I want to take the advice of the policy group that I am forming, and I wish to hear the views of business. Having listened, I will announce our policy at the time of the publication of the manifesto. However, we are in no doubt that the national minimum wage is damaging, and we strongly oppose it. We urge the Government to do something, even at this late stage, about the damage that they are creating.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Labour Members do not seem to have a clue as to the damage that the minimum wage is doing to small rural businesses. I am in correspondence with a small accountant in the town of Ellesmere, who handles the accounts of small businesses, who has specifically asked me take up the problems that the minimum wage is bringing to those businesses, which cannot pass on the extra costs to their customers and will simply lay off their work force.
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his heartfelt advice, which reflects the advice that we are getting from all round the country through my hon. Friends and direct from British business.
  When the Government are challenged about the factory closures that happen day after day, all that we are offered is a new spin. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) asked me which companies I talk to. Is he aware of the closures that have been announced by the Co-op, by Siemens and by Rover-BMW? Textiles, steel or cars—the story is the same in every industry: either mass sackings or complete factory closures.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Following on from the points that have been made about setting exchange rates and interest rates, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the official position of Her Majesty's Opposition is that the independence of the Bank of England will be abolished, as will the new deal? What is the probability of those policies changing next week in the light of a new statement by the Leader of the Opposition or his deputy?
  Mr. Redwood: Labour Members really are rattled, if that is the best that they can do. Conservative Members have opposed each of the policies identified by the hon. Gentleman. We are the Opposition; it is our duty to say either that we can live with a policy, and perhaps be quiet about it, or that a policy is outrageous and we oppose it tooth and nail. We have opposed the policies that have been referred to today. That is our official position, and we think that the country would be better off without the minimum wage and without an independent central bank in its current shape.
  Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Labour Members appreciate that it is the job of Her Majesty's Opposition to oppose. If this is such a serious matter, will there be a better vote at 7 o'clock than there was at 4 o'clock, when—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order; it is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Redwood: That point of order was particularly bizarre, because I have been giving way to Labour

  543
  Members and would have been happy to take that point of debate as well. Some Conservative Members will be out meeting the electors; important elections are coming up and we want to maximise the vote against the Government because of the damage that they are clearly doing to jobs and to business. On each of those policy areas, we will give our view nearer the time of the next Parliament. Our clear view now is, "Don't do it, or rescind it."
  Mr. John Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of how sick it makes people in such areas as South Yorkshire to hear him make accusations about Government policies causing job losses? Is he aware that 12,500 people were employed in metalworking manufacturing in Rotherham in 1979? After two recessions, and 15 years later, fewer than one in five of those jobs were left. There were 12 working pits in Rotherham in 1981. Now there is one. Is he aware that unemployment in Rotherham peaked at 23.5 per cent. when the previous Administration were in office?
  Mr. Redwood: The fact that people lost their jobs in a recession under the Conservatives does not mean that it is right for people to lose their jobs today under a Labour Government. The Government came to power promising something better. We have already agreed that the loss of jobs in the recession that took place under the Conservatives was a great tragedy; people wanted something better, but they are not getting it—they are getting something worse.
  Instead of jobs in older industries going, jobs in new industries are going. Jobs in a state-of-the-art microchip plant are going, only to spring up, not so far away, in Paris, and the Minister concerned says that that is nothing to do with Britain's competitiveness against the continent, but everything to do with the world slump. I call that misleading the public and I want an apology.
  Mr. Rammell: The right hon. Gentleman recites a litany of alleged crimes, but has he read any of the articles in the informed financial press this week, all of which suggest that, for the first time in a generation and within the downturn of an economic cycle, this country will avoid going into recession? Can he explain why that is happening?
  Mr. Redwood: The American economy is performing extremely well, which is helping some service sectors and, in particular, the economy of the south of Britain. I am grateful that that is happening. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to the debates over the past two years, he would have known that, on behalf of the Opposition, I have consistently predicted a sharp and unpleasant industrial recession, but have never predicted a general recession.
  I thought that we would have a two-tier economy; I thought that conditions would be all right for those who mend software, but not for those who make textiles. Unfortunately, we are seeing exactly that pattern. Terrible damage is being done in the industrial heartlands, which tend to be represented by Labour Members, but areas such as my own, which are much more dependent on hi-tech
  544
  businesses, are not doing so badly. Even in my constituency, however, there have been two very unpleasant engineering closures in the past month.
  Kali Mountford: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to textiles. Is he ready to apologise for the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in west Yorkshire under his Administration? Constituencies that were entirely dependent on textiles now have not one textile job left.
  Mr. Redwood: We have dealt with those matters endlessly during our debates and I see no need to repeat all that I have said in the past. We are moving on and drawing attention to the present and to the future. I can tell the hon. Lady that that is what the electorate are interested in. They want to know what the Government are going to do, how their jobs will be secured or improved today and what will happen when they lose their jobs. They are no longer raking over the coals of 10 years ago; they want to know about the present and the future.
  All that we ever get from the Government is new spin. Our charge is that fine words are no substitute for right actions from a Government. Business cannot sell more abroad because the Government say, "The pound is fine for you." Business cannot employ more people because the Government say that they believe in deregulation, but they have to achieve it, otherwise the jobs will not be available.
  Industry cannot make a profit because the Government say that they believe in lower taxes, but they have to implement lower taxes so that there is more profit to keep and spend on other things. The bottom line is that most companies are under pressure from the Government's actions, and no amount of fine words can put that right. Those in government have to will the means as well as will the ends.
  We have a Government of self-appointed saints and spinners. There is no public hint of self-doubt, and no suggestion that they might be wrong and that industry might be right. Industry has been warning for months that it is too difficult to make things in Britain. Why will the Government not listen and do something about that?
  The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, did nothing to help industry; I see that he is so uninterested in it that he has not come to listen to the debate. He lived in a state of original spin. The present Secretary of State has done nothing to help industry either, but he lives in a state of unoriginal spin. Most of his spin is inherited from his predecessor.
  Mr. Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State admitted to me last week, in front of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, that the Government had not "got it right" on regulation? In the light of that, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is an absolute outrage that, only this week, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, told me in a parliamentary answer that the Government do not publish, and do not even intend to publish, an annual statement of the costs of regulation on British business? Does that not show how little the Government care about the problems they cause?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to Back Benchers to make interventions brief. The hon. Member

  545
  for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is not the only Member who is guilty; other interventions have been far too long. Interventions must be brief, and they have not been brief by my standards.
  Mr. Redwood: As always, I am happy to take interventions. Many hon. Members would like to speak in the debate, and I have other remarks to make. Perhaps hon. Members will bear that in mind when they try to intervene.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and pay tribute on the Floor of the House to the Bill that he introduced to the House earlier this week. His Bill tries to do something about the problems of manufacturing and other industries and I recommend it to the Secretary of State.
  The Secretary of State says that he wants a new consensus and believes in parties of good will helping enterprise. He says that he is a deregulator; my hon. Friend has done the work for him by giving him the very Bill that would solve some of his problems. I look forward to the Secretary of State graciously accepting it. I should be happy for him to amend it—I am sure that it could be improved—and we would give it a fair wind. I would not bring the Conservative army in to try to vote it down; I would come to the House to praise it. [Laughter.] Hon. Members who laugh at the idea of the Tory army's voting things down should remember that they lost two votes on a crucial Bill on the fair conduct of referendums not so many days ago. We look forward to doing the same when the need and the opportunity arise.
  I warn the Secretary of State, who knows that his Government have lost two votes on a crucial issue, that the mood of business is turning against the Government. When the Government say that they care about industry, industrialists ask why, in that case, they are being crippled by the high level of the pound. When the Government say that they believe in deregulation, business asks why, in that case, the Government have introduced the minimum wage, the social chapter, the 48-hour working week and many new regulatory bodies. When the Government say that they are keeping taxes down, and occasionally cutting tax rates, business points out that the cost of taxation has risen massively. That is what matters—how much business is actually paying, rather than one or two particular rates of tax in special cases.
  When the Government say that they want more savings and investment, the Opposition ask why the Government singled out pensions for penal taxation, and why the savings rate is plummeting under the current regime. When the Government say that more jobs are being created, all those who have recently been thrown out of their industrial jobs ask whether the Government have noticed that, and whether they care. When the Government say that they have now rescued Rover, we ask whose policies undermined it in the first place. In the last year of Conservative government, BMW came here and bought Rover. It was profitable, and BMW said that it was going ahead with a major investment programme. Under Labour, the losses built up and the thing turned around in the wrong direction. Under Labour, a rescue operation had to be announced.
  Will the Secretary of State tell us how much has been offered to BMW to secure that investment—which, of course, we welcomed? Will he also assure us that he had
  546
  clearance from Brussels before signing the deal, and that there is no chance of jobs' being jeopardised or lost at the last minute as a result of European Union intervention following an agreement between the Secretary of State, the company and all the other parties concerned? Those are important questions, to which we and the Longbridge work force need answers.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend, who is making an important point, will know that the discredited—in a collective sense—Commissioner van Miert seems to want to instigate an investigation of the disbursement of some £150 million of Government aid to BMW-Rover. Surely the United Kingdom has a pretty good record, or did have until the present Government came to power. Industrial subsidies to manufacturing industry in Italy are six times as high as those in the United Kingdom, and those in Germany are four times as high. Has not the European Union got a cheek?
  Mr. Redwood: Of course I hope that the deal will go through and that jobs will be saved, but I condemn the level of support that has had to be given to secure those jobs. I blame the Government for that. I am delighted that we have a deal. Of course money had to be offered, because industry has been damaged so badly by the Government's policies; but if BMW-Rover had been making more money, retaining more profit and generating more cash in the United Kingdom, it would not have been necessary to offer so much money to secure the investment.
  Now that this has been done, however, we want the jobs as much as the Secretary of State does, and we want no interference by the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend is right: there are massive industrial subsidies on the continent of Europe which are unfair, and which should be tackled before the rather lesser subsidies in Britain are subjected to scrutiny.
  The Secretary of State does not like answering questions. I am almost tempted to ask for the return of the first Secretary of State, or President of the Board of Trade. She did not give away much at the time, but she was positively loquacious in comparison with the present Secretary of State. When I send him letters, either privately or publicly and politically—polite, or a little sharper—he says that he does not answer letters. I have never known a Secretary of State who refuses to answer letters from a parliamentary colleague speaking on behalf of the Opposition, but that is what this Secretary of State does, and I think that the public should know about it.
  Mr. Byers: For the record, what I have said to the right hon. Gentleman—as he knows—is that when Parliament is in recess I am more than happy to answer his letters, but when Parliament is sitting I think it a gross discourtesy to the House to put questions in private, in letters, which could be tabled as parliamentary questions. If such questions were tabled, every hon. Member could see them and read the responses.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I seek your guidance, for the protection of Back Benchers. During my 16 years as a Member of Parliament I have written hundreds, maybe thousands, of letters to Ministers. Am I now to be prevented from doing

  547
  that because I should be tabling parliamentary questions? That is an absurd notion, and should be stamped on immediately.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. How the Secretary of State conducts his affairs is up to him. It is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Redwood: I urge the Secretary of State to think again about this rather strange new constitutional doctrine. If I write him a letter, I write it because hundreds of thousands, or millions, or people out there share my point of view. I see it as a public duty to show that there is a different view, or a different way forward. There are times when I would like to write the Secretary of State a private letter, but, believe it or not, I care enough about business in this country to want occasionally to use my position, on behalf of business generally, to write to the Secretary of State privately to say, "If I were you, I would pay attention to this and do something about it."
  When I was a Minister, if a Labour Member of Parliament—my opposite number, for instance—wrote a private letter, I respected that privacy. If it was a shadow Minister, I would invite him round for a cup of tea so that we could talk through what he had said. That is what the proper parliamentary process is about. If, on occasion, I write a private note and the Secretary of State thinks that I am being too cautious and that what I have said should be made public, I shall be happy for him to ring me up and say, "Let us publish the correspondence." When I write a general or political letter I will publish it anyway, so no discourtesy to the House of Commons is involved. Everyone will see it. I do not mind what the Secretary of State does with his letter, as long as I receive an answer myself.
  Under the Conservatives, we followed the traditions of courtesy in this place. If a shadow Minister wrote a letter, it was treated as urgent. We took a personal interest in replying to such letters. If the letter was highly political, we sent a highly political answer; but at least we dealt with the letter there and then. If the letter was written in a different spirit and a different tone—we all know the different tones that are used in our job—it would be answered in a similar tone. We would accept that the shadow Minister had a point, and was speaking for his constituents or in the wider interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] Hon. Members should not order me to get on with it. This is about how industry should present its case, and about whether the Government will listen.[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not get so excited.
  Mr. Redwood: The Secretary of State's new doctrine is that I must table all the more subtle points in my letters in parliamentary questions. I have tried that once or twice. Let me tell the House what happens in such cases. First, the Department sits on it for a bit. It misses the deadline. Then it decides to shuffle the question over to the Treasury, which decides that it is too difficult to answer—or the person concerned is not allowed to answer because, if he did, the Chancellor would beat him up, or at least
  548
  disagree with him. The Treasury then fails to come up with an answer at all. I shall give the House and the Secretary of State an example.
  I asked the simple question: what will be the impact on unemployment of a 1 per cent. increase in labour costs? That is not a hugely difficult question that needs rocket science to answer: any Government economic model has such information built into it, and the Secretary of State must have considered such matters before he pushed through the remains of the Government's employment legislation designed to increase wage costs. The previous Government certainly looked into the issue when we considered the sort of ideas that the Government are now producing, and we decided that they would be damaging. The Government must have a view.
  The Secretary of State shoved the matter over to the Chancellor. The Chancellor or one of his Ministers replied that it would depend on whether the 1 per cent. increase in wages was matched by productivity. Well, you don't say! That was well worked out. I then tabled a question saying that what I had in mind was a 1 per cent. increase not matched by productivity, which is exactly the type of increase that the Government are forcing on British business. The Government refused to answer. That is a disgrace. This is meant to be open government.
  Are Labour's ideas helping to generate more jobs, or are they destroying jobs? That is the big issue. I asked a simple question that goes to the heart of the matter. The Government will not answer it in letters, and they will not answer it from either Department of State. How can they claim to believe in business or open government when they will not answer such a simple point? Perhaps they will argue that one cannot get the staff these days. We do not get much out of the Government for £330 billion: it is all spent on spinning—none of it is spent on answering questions or on proper policy analysis. The Secretary of State is paid money to answer questions. I look forward to getting value for that money when he has had time to reflect on these exchanges.
  I enjoyed the recent spat between the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs and the Secretary of State over the decision on News International and its bid for Manchester United. We have had no opportunity to cross-examine the Secretary of State on that. There has been no statement, although it was a big issue that affected thousands of Manchester United fans and many media businesses in this country and elsewhere.
  The Secretary of State consistently told me before the decision that the Government had been entirely neutral, and that he was relying on an independent body outside Government to settle this crucial policy issue. We now learn that the Government submitted advice to the competition authority telling it to turn down the bid. The authority recommended turning it down, and the Secretary of State turned it down. Why did the Secretary of State not tell us that at the beginning? He could have saved the fans all the worry and the trouble of campaigning to try to influence the decision that he and his colleagues had already made. He also put Mr. Murdoch to considerable expense and trouble on the other side of the account. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am delighted that the Labour party so dislikes Mr. Murdoch. I am sure that he will be interested to read these exchanges and to learn that his business investment in Britain and his newspapers are not valued by the new Labour party.

  549
  The Government gave Mr. Murdoch a slap in the face, and they put the fans through a great deal of unnecessary worry, trouble and uncertainty. If only they had the courage to set out a policy on the relationship between the media and sport, we might have an even more flourishing media and sports industry, more investment and more common working of the kind that must happen one way or another.
  Mr. Tony McNulty: Get back to the motion.
  Mr. Redwood: Labour Members should read the motion, because it is about the state of British business. [Interruption.] They point at the clock, but they have wasted time by making trivial debating points, whereas we are trying to highlight the damage being done.
  I want the Secretary of State to tell us how many shipyards will close. Is he worried that 5,000 jobs are at risk from Kvaerner? What does he intend to do about that? Would it not be the final curtain on Labour's miserable industrial policy if the Govan yard were to close under the Government's economic stewardship? I learn that more bad news is just in: 200 jobs have been lost at Crane Fluid Systems in Ipswich.
  Mr. Leslie: The right hon. Gentleman loves it.
  Mr. Redwood: No, I do not love it; I hate it. I do not want my country to suffer and to do badly. I want the Government to listen to my warnings before another Crane Fluid Systems or another Kvaerner sacks staff and closes shipyards and factories.
  The litany of woe from industry is all across the piece. The British Chambers of Commerce has said:
  "Manufacturers continue to experience a deteriorating sales position at home … The knock on effect of the manufacturing slowdown is being … felt on jobs, the sector's employment figure has slumped to its lowest level for six years".
  The "Engineering Trends" survey was equally gloomy. It said:
  "Total new order intake fell again in the first quarter, having consistently declined since the second quarter of 1998."
  It forecasts that more jobs will go. It says:
  "Labour shedding became prevalent in the second quarter of 1998"—
  after the Government came to power. It continues:
  "Since then the trend has become more emphatic … Employment in the industry is forecast to decline significantly both this year and next."
  Let us hope that labour shedding spreads to the electorate on 6 May. An awful lot of Labour votes and Labour councillors should be shed. The British public can pass their judgment on the job losses and the industrial failure that we see all over the place.
  The Secretary of State sees mounting unemployment in his own constituency. The Foreign Secretary, having done so much damage to British business by his diplomatic blunders abroad, has had a huge increase in unemployment in his constituency. We now see the damage being done by
  550
  the national minimum wage and the 48-hour working week policies. One of the many people who have written to me said that the minimum wage was
  "great for those who will be receiving it but not so good for my son, and I am sure many more that are being made redundant because their employers cannot or are not prepared to pay it".
  The lady continued:
  "My son was devastated when he was told that he is being made redundant because of it."
  It is all very well for Ministers to say that employers are not allowed to do that, but the fact is that employers are doing that because they have no choice. One company was quoted in the Daily Mail as saying that it has cut its work force from 50 to 30 to get ready for the minimum wage, which it could not otherwise afford.
  All sorts of fiddles and diddles are being developed. Does the Minister know that some temporary employees who expected to get holiday pay are now told that their current rate includes it, and that they can take it or leave it? Does he know that lecturers with annual contracts are now told that they can have only 12-week contracts, so that they are not covered by the law? Does he know that there are so many holes in the policy that it looks like a sieve?
  Does the Minister care that Business Strategies has forecast that 80,000 jobs will go because of the minimum wage? Does he know that an organiser for the GMB recently said that, because of the legislation, employees' hours of work are being cut, and that employees are being told to work harder for fewer hours to make the books balance? Another GMB official has said that some employers are making staff pay for their overalls and laundry to offset the minimum wage costs. I am sure that Labour Members did not want those effects, but they are the exact and inevitable consequences of sloppily drafted legislation, which, without those consequences, threatens people with the sack. We now see the emerging loopholes being used in an attempt to offset the job losses that otherwise would occur.
  Now, 10 jobs are being lost for every hour of the Labour Government. Jobs are going across the country. If one makes things, one gets clobbered. If one elects a Labour Member, one gets clobbered. If one dares to elect a Labour Cabinet Minister, one gets clobbered particularly hard.
  Since November, in Blackburn—which is meant to be looked after by the Home Secretary—unemployment has increased by 248, and many more jobs have gone. In Sheffield, Brightside, which is looked after by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment—a little joke there—unemployment has increased by 355, and many more jobs have gone. In Newcastle and Wallsend, which is presided over by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, unemployment has increased by 236. At least the Agriculture Minister is able to tell all the farmers that he is being entirely even-handed—they get the sack, and so do his constituents who work in factories.
  Over at the Treasury, Ministers damage themselves as well as others. In Leicester, West, which is presided over by the Economic Secretary, unemployment is up by 349. In Pontefract, where the local Member of Parliament is full of good advice on how to run a successful economy,

  551
  unemployment has shot up by 365 since October. I therefore suggest that she should go back to the drawing board.
  Yvette Cooper: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for suddenly showing such concern about jobs in my constituency. I hope that he will answer a question on a matter that is very important in that regard. Does he agree with the desire expressed in a previous Opposition debate by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) for a return to the previous Government's energy policy of replacing coal-fired power stations with gas-fired power stations—the effect of which would be to close pits and the coal industry, thereby losing 1,200 jobs in my constituency?
  Mr. Redwood: The previous Government's policy was kinder on the coal industry than the current Government's policy has been—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not do any thinking or reading. Do they not know that the present Government have tightened environmental constraints beyond the rather tight constraints introduced by the previous Government, the end result of which is that more pits will have to close now than under the previous, Conservative Government's policy? So the hon. Lady has scored an own goal with that one and completely misunderstood the important point.
  Yvette Cooper rose—
  Mr. Redwood: I must make progress, as we are running out of time in this rather short but very important debate.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said, bankruptcies are rising. In the first three months of 1999, bankruptcies soared by 62 per cent, in the east Midlands and by 40 per cent. in both Wales and south-west England. A KPMG survey showed that receiverships are up by almost half in the north-east. Even a much better new deal than Labour's could not keep pace with the industrial devastation that we see daily on our television screens.
  The Labour Government's answer to that high pounding of industry is to take £5,200 million out of business with their windfall tax; £14,250 million out of business in the first Budget; and £4,900 million out of business in their second Budget. They then had the audacity to tell us that we should be grateful for the "tax cut". It is not so much a tax cut, more a spin—but there is little spinning going on in the British textile industry after those Government policies. All we see is closure after closure.
  The Conservatives want the Government to change course, and we propose a five-point plan for industrial recovery. First, the Government must cut business taxes. That will leave more money in the hands of business for investing in new plant, designing new products and creating new jobs. Secondly, the Government must stop imposing all those new rules and regulations and admit that their labour market legislation is an expensive shambles. They must either repeal it or exempt all small firms, which could then generate the jobs that we need.
  552
  Thirdly, the Government must tell the Bank of England that manufacturing matters. We need interest rates and an exchange rate that work for British business. The Opposition have often called for more sensible interest rates than those imposed by the Government and the Bank, and if our advice had been heeded at the time, the damage would have been limited.
  Fourthly, the Government must get a better deal for British business from Brussels. They must use any influence that they may have to avert a trade war with the United States of America, and to press for the trade ban on British goods to be lifted. They must warn our partners that the beggar-my-neighbour devaluation of the euro must stop because it is destroying jobs in Britain.
  Fifthly, the Government must sort out the mess that they have created by their specific attacks on individual industries. Petrol and diesel taxes are destroying our haulage industry, the Government's agriculture policy is destroying our farms, and the fishing policy is good for Spain but bad for Britain. Their muddled competition policy leaves media and sports businesses in confusion, and anybody with a vertical tie at a loss, having to pay huge lawyers' bills.
  The Conservatives are setting out a clear pro-business agenda. We are once again the voice of business. My postbag is full of letters from the business community condemning the Government. Business wants us to warn and advise it before more factories close and more jobs are lost. I urge the Secretary of State—for the sake of the unions and his own constituents, if not because of my pleadings—to take those issues seriously, to answer the questions in the spirit in which they were posed, and to speak up and do something for British business.
  5.2 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the actions of the Government to reverse the industrial decline and the destruction of jobs, not least for young people, that characterised the situation while the Opposition formed the Government; welcomes the creation of over 400,000 jobs since the last election; notes the contrast between this situation and that of the Tory slow-down of 1989 to 1993 when over a million manufacturing jobs were lost; welcomes the achievements of the New Deal and its contribution to the 35 per cent fall since January 1998 in the number of young people unemployed for six months or more; believes that the sound economic policies of this Government are a better way to support industrial success and job creation than the interest rates at 15 per cent, budget deficits soaring, high long-term interest rates and boom and bust economics that were the previous Government's policy; and welcomes the strategy set out in the Competitiveness White Paper for encouraging enterprise, investment and innovation as the right way forward for Britain.".
  There is one aspect of his strange and rather over-long speech that I think the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) will regret—his comments about Kvaerner in Scotland. He should be aware that all political parties in Scotland, including the Conservative party, have agreed not to try to score cheap political points at the expense of the Kvaerner yard. I regret the way in which he introduced that element into the debate.
  However, I can understand why the right hon. Gentleman did that. The debate is taking place at a difficult time for the Conservative party, because it is a party bitterly divided and in denial both about its record in government and about the principles that underpin it.

  553
  I am pleased to see that the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks on trade and industry, has been joined on the Front Bench by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who speaks for the Conservatives on social security. Those two are not sitting round the kitchen table discussing the development of Conservative policy. They are being excluded from such matters, which are all being handed over to a group of former Social Democratic party members so that they can make the decisions.
  I shall say more about kitchen table politics later, when I develop my theory about a party in denial of its principles. First, however, let us look at the Conservatives' denial of the past and of their record in government—a record of which the right hon. Member for Wokingham needs reminding. He was a Minister at most of the relevant times during the 1990s, yet he made no attempt to apologise for the mayhem and the destruction of the industrial base caused by his Government during the early 1990s, when they presided over one of the deepest recessions that we have ever seen in this country.
  The right hon. Gentleman made no reference to the recession of the early 1980s, when the Conservatives were in office. In the early 1980s, GDP fell by some 6 per cent., manufacturing output fell by 18 per cent. and jobs were lost to the tune of 1.75 million, of which 1.5 million were in the manufacturing sector. That was the record of the Conservative party in government in the early 1980s.
  The right hon. Gentleman touched briefly on the employment record of this Government. He said very little about youth unemployment—Hansard will show that he spent longer on our correspondence than on youth unemployment—but that perhaps reflects the status that he likes to give himself over and above the needs of those young people. Between 1979 and 1984, youth unemployment increased by some 650,000 and long-term unemployment increased by some 450,000. That was the record of the Conservative party in government in the early 1980s, and we will not let the Conservatives forget it.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: When the new deal started last April, the rate of unemployment among 16 and 17-year-olds was 159,000, but the latest figure is 183,000. For the 18 to 24-year-olds, unemployment figures were 444,000 and are now 456,000. Those figures may be wrong, but they are the Government's figures from the Office for National Statistics. Why has youth unemployment gone up since the introduction of the new deal?
  Mr. Byers: Yet again the hon. Gentleman is wrong, but at least he is consistent in that. The figures that he has mentioned include students looking for part-time work and parents with family responsibilities who are not seeking work. The claimant count—those who want employment—is down by more than a third under the new deal. That is the best way to count the figures for the new deal.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities will address the issue of the new deal when he winds up the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall mention the new deal briefly when I need to address inaccurate and mistaken comments about it, but I wish to remind the House of the record of the Conservative Government in the early 1980s and the early 1990s. The latter period saw the second recession under that Conservative Administration.
  554
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham criticised this Government. He said that our interest rates were too high and that he was worried about the rate of inflation. I remind him that during the early 1990s, interest rates stayed at 15 per cent. for a year and were more than 10 per cent. for no fewer than four years, and inflation was at 10 per cent. During that time, manufacturing output fell by 7 per cent. and more than 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham carries a personal responsibility because he was the Minister for Corporate Affairs during that time. In his contribution, he mentioned what he called a terrible record of personal bankruptcies and company insolvencies under this Government. Let us look at the record to see how successful he was as Minister for Corporate Affairs, and how companies and individuals prospered at that time. He became Minister for Corporate Affairs in 1989. In that year, the number of company insolvencies was 10,800, but then his magic began to work. In 1990, they were up to 15,500, in 1991 they were up to 22,400, and by 1992—when he left that office—they were up to 25,000. Of course, as soon as he departed, the figures went down again. In 1993, there were 21,000 company insolvencies.
  Mr. Redwood: I shall ask the Secretary of State a variant of the usual question in this often-rehearsed debating point. Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that he and the rest of the Labour Opposition at the time supported the exchange rate mechanism policy that led to those dreadful events and bankruptcies? They have never apologised in the way that we have. How is it right to do the same thing again? Why did the right hon. Gentleman not learn from the experience?
  Mr. Byers: I know that the right hon. Gentleman hates to be reminded of his personal record. He likes to portray himself as a man of principle, but he was happy to remain a Minister in a Government who followed the course of action that I have described. He allowed the comfort of the leather seat in the ministerial car to take priority over his principles.
  I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what happened when he was a Minister. I have shown how company insolvencies rose dramatically in that period, but we should also examine his record with regard to personal bankruptcies, a subject mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman himself. In 1989, when he took office, there were 10,400 personal bankruptcies, each one an individual tragedy. For the years 1990, 1991 and 1992, the personal bankruptcy figures were 16,400, 30,297 and 42,900. However, things began to look up after he left office in 1993—personal bankruptcies fell to 37,000 in that year. That is the right hon. Gentleman's record.
  When the right hon. Gentleman talks about company insolvencies and personal bankruptcies, he should look at his own record: both rose dramatically while he was in office, and both began to fall as soon as he left office. That is the consistency as far he is concerned.
  Mr. Bercow: What proportion of the 32 per cent. increase in small business bankruptcies in the first quarter of this year does the Secretary of State attribute to the savage tax and regulatory policies of his Government?
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman is trying to divert attention from the record of the right hon. Member

  555
  for Wokingham. However, as I have told the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and as I said during Trade and Industry questions in the House three weeks ago, we as a Government have not got regulation right and we aim to improve our record in that regard. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office said the same thing on Tuesday evening. We intend to put in place new procedures and mechanisms to ensure that we can lift the burden from businesses, be they small, medium-sized or large. I look forward to receiving a copy of the hon. Gentleman's Regulations on Small Businesses (Reduction) Bill, to see whether it contains any proposals of merit. I live in hope.
  Mr. Sheerman: Is not my right hon. Friend being unfair to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)? My right hon. Friend mentioned company insolvencies and personal bankruptcies in that period, but not the levels of interest rates or unemployment. That is unfair, as it means that he could not compare them with their respective levels currently. I hope that my right hon. Friend will set the record straight so that we can get the full picture of those glorious days of "Redwood in action".
  Mr. Byers: I know that many Labour Members like to be reminded of the days of Tory boom and bust. I wanted to avoid using the phrase but, given that the temptation has been put before me, I shall say once again that interest rates were at 15 per cent. for a year and 10 per cent. for four years, that inflation was at 10 per cent. and that more than 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost. That was the record of the right hon. Gentleman when he was Minister for Corporate Affairs.
  Mr. Redwood: Is the Secretary of State suggesting that, in this Government, the economy is run by the Under-Secretary in the Department of Trade and Industry who holds the post equivalent to the one that I held? Does he set interest rates and create the conditions that lead to employment or unemployment? If that is what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, I shall have to disabuse him: I did not do all that when I was an Under-Secretary of State.
  Mr. Byers: It wasn't me, guy? The point is well made. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of a Government who were happy to preside over that economic position, and he did nothing about it. If he had disagreed, he could have resigned. He did not—at least, not until quite a bit later. The right hon. Gentleman can smile at that, but he knows that he jumped before he was pushed in a reshuffle.
  The Opposition have had a deplorable 10 days, and they know it. They are in a desperate situation. The shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green knows that very well. He is isolated, ignored and not included in discussions that are taking place. Neither he nor the right hon. Member for Wokingham are part of what is happening in the Conservative party, and I understand why they are here together, clinging to each other in their splendid isolation.
  Over the past 10 days, the Conservative party has clearly been in denial—denying its very principles. The right hon. Member for Wokingham and the hon. Member
  556
  for Chingford and Woodford Green subscribe to those principles: they believe in the free market, and that the private sector should have an increased role in providing public services. We know that those are their views. But the pair of them have been consigned to the dustbin of history. They no longer represent the views of the Conservative party.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham is often hyperactive, but he has been very quiet during the past few days of debate within the Conservative party. I understand why that is so. He has put on the record his firmly held views, and they are in total conflict with the present policies of the Conservative party.
  Last week, the deputy leader of the Conservative party showed a new way forward on the rejection of privatisation. But in The Daily Telegraph of 29 January 1997, the right hon. Member for Wokingham made his personal position clear. He said:
  "I was an early advocate of privatisation, when it was thought wild-eyed and radical"—
  an appropriate thing for him to have said, of course—
  "and an early practitioner, when it was still hazardous. No one can doubt my credentials as a privatiser."
  That was the right hon. Gentleman's position. It will be interesting to see how he reconciles it with the position stated last week by the deputy leader of the Conservative party.
  Mr. Redwood: That is terribly easy. I was always a keen and early advocate of privatising commercial trading business to which people paid money for services or goods and which we could hope to make profitable in the private sector. As Secretary of State for Wales, responsible for health and education there, I was extremely keen to increase budgets so that we had properly financed state schools and hospitals. They are vital services. I use the NHS myself, and I used the education system when I was of that age. I want others to have access to the best possible care, and I fully support all that the leader of the Conservative party said in his recent speech.
  Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman made a deliberate slip there. He said that he supported everything that the leader of the Conservative party had said. I had referred to the deputy leader. Does he agree with all that the deputy leader said in his speech last week? Yes, or no?
  There we have it. The right hon. Gentleman has deliberately failed to put it on the record that he agrees with the points made by the deputy leader of the Conservative party, specifically referring instead to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday evening. That clearly exposes the fundamental division in the Conservative party.
  Mr. Redwood: What I have said shows no confusion or split. The leader has gone further than the deputy leader did. The leader included all the things that I think important. The deputy leader was saying that he wanted properly financed public sector schools and hospitals, and I provided just that when I was a Secretary of State. I am very keen on that, and there is no difference between the deputy leader and me on the need to put enough money into a state school or a state hospital.
  Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the point. The issue is whether the private sector

  557
  should be involved in public services such as education and health. The right hon. Gentleman is on a hook, and I want to make sure that we find out his precise position. He deliberately sought to avoid my point about his leader and deputy leader.
  Let us move on to the shadow Chancellor's position. Earlier this week, he said clearly that he believed that the Government's proposals on public spending should be agreed. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, commenting in The Daily Telegraph on 11 August 1998 on the comprehensive spending review, he said:
  "Labour's second big mistake was to announce huge increases in public spending"?
  He went on to say:
  "The Opposition recommends promoting savings and reducing future public spending plans."
  If that is what the right hon. Gentleman believes, how can he reconcile that with the comments made on Monday by the shadow Chancellor?
  Mr. Redwood: There is a budget called welfare which is the shadow responsibility of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). We in the shadow Cabinet all agree that the welfare bill is increasing far too rapidly. We have opposed a number of changes that have led to that increase. The right hon. Gentleman will hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), if he catches Madam Speaker's eye later in the debate, about one of the areas where we think we can reduce that bill to the considerable benefit of the country at large. Our proposals are to have a lower rate of increase in the welfare bill than the Government are suggesting so that we can create more room for a sensible tax regime for business. We are fully behind, and always have been, increasing spending on health and education. This Government are increasing it more slowly than the Conservatives did in Government.
  Mr. Byers: Conservative Members have not always been behind the increase because the shadow Chancellor called it reckless and foolish at the time. What we know—we have heard it now from the right hon. Gentleman—is that there should be cuts in welfare spending. We know that already because of the points made by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. The Conservatives are on record as having said that they would cut the working families tax credit. Where else would cuts be made to reduce public spending to the level at which the right hon. Gentleman would wish it to be? He needs to answer those particular questions.
  Over the past 10 days, we have seen a Conservative party divided. I now want to move on to show how a Labour Government can move forward and provide the economic framework in which businesses can prosper.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was Secretary of State for Wales, he denied Wales millions and millions of pounds of European funding that was available at the time? Therefore, as opposed to supporting public expenditure,
  558
  his record shows that he handed back expenditure available to Wales and elsewhere for investment in public services.
  Mr. Byers: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman's record across the piece, whether in relation to Wales or corporate affairs, bears detailed scrutiny.
  Mr. Bercow: It does.
  Mr. Byers: I agree absolutely. Perhaps we can move on now to the substance of what I want to say in relation to the economy that we inherited and the framework that we are putting in place.
  There is no doubt that we inherited an economy that had strong inflationary pressures, with a large structural deficit on public finances and a public sector net borrowing requirement of £28 billion. In the face of unsustainable growth, rising inflationary pressures and high public borrowing, we had to take tough action to overcome the difficulties that we inherited. That is why we took the politics out of interest rates. We do not know yet whether the Conservatives agree with that policy. We are ensuring that rate decisions are taken in the national interest and on the basis of the long-term needs of the economy, and not on short-term political considerations.
  We took action to put public finances back on track. As a result of those tough decisions, inflation is under control, interest rates have come down 2.25 per cent. in the past seven months and long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 40 years. We have put public finances back on a sound footing. We are on track to meet our strict fiscal rules while investing £40 billion in our schools and hospitals. The economy continues to grow and create new jobs. The latest figures show that the economy grew by 2.5 per cent. during 1998. More than 400,000 jobs have been created since the general election. Long-term unemployment has fallen by more than 50 per cent. and youth unemployment is down by more than 55 per cent. since then. There are a record number of people in work.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham likes to refer to the number of jobs that are being lost. I think that his calculation is one every six minutes; it was one every 10. That fails to acknowledge the number of jobs being created. One job is created every two minutes. That is the reality under this Government, and 400,000 people are benefiting from our policies.
  Jobs are being created in all regions and we have had some positive announcements recently. This year alone, more than 68,000 new jobs have been announced. The right hon. Member for Wokingham referred to the north-east. More than 5,000 new jobs have been announced there so far this year. In particular, Nissan has recently started recruiting for about 800 new jobs linked to the production of a new model.
  In the north-west, there have been more than 9,000 job gains since the beginning of the year. Yorkshire and Humberside have experienced net gains of more than 2,000 jobs since November. The west midlands has had 650 new jobs recently announced. In the east midlands, about 6,500 new jobs have been announced so far this year, in the east of England, 4,700, and in the south-east, around 7,500. In London, nearly 4,000 new jobs have been created since the end of last year. In the south-west, almost 6,000 jobs have been announced in 1999.

  559
  In Scotland, 1,800 new jobs have been announced so far in April alone. On Tuesday, I was pleased to visit Motorola's Easter Inch plant at Bathgate where 400 jobs have been announced in the past few weeks. In Wales, 500 new jobs have recently been announced. In Northern Ireland, the Industrial Development Board has announced investments that promise 1,400 new jobs.
  Those jobs have already been announced, but I have good news for the House on recent offers of regional selective assistance to companies, which are considering whether to accept them. Up and down the country, regional selective assistance will bring thousands of extra jobs in the weeks and months ahead. In the north-east, offers have been made that will safeguard or create 1,700 jobs. In the north-west, the figure is 2,455; in the south-west, more than 1,000; in the west midlands, 2,800; in Yorkshire and Humberside 1,700. In total, 11,700 jobs will be safeguarded or created.
  Kali Mountford: I was delighted to hear that great list of new jobs. Can my right hon. Friend guarantee that we will not return to the policies of the previous Government? When I lived in Sheffield, Brightside, I saw unemployment go from being the lowest in the country to the 12th highest because of the closure of the steel industry.
  Mr. Byers: I agree with my hon. Friend. Among industries doing well in a competitive environment, the steel industry is being remarkably successful.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham mentioned the Siemens plant in north Tyneside. Regional selective assistance is an important part of any package to attract inward investment. It is offered, and comes, with conditions clearly attached. When a company fails to meet those conditions, we shall take action to claim back the moneys that have been paid over. I can inform the House that this morning, my Department invoiced Siemens in full for the £18 million of regional selective assistance that was provided to it. We shall recover that money and we shall use every penny of it to secure additional inward investment, whether for the north-east or for the rest of the country. We shall provide employment with the money that will be paid back to the Government by Siemens. It failed to meet the conditions that we set. It will now be required, as a matter of urgency, to repay the £18 million that it received so that we can use it to create employment opportunities.
  Mr. Redwood: I wholeheartedly endorse that decision, and I am grateful that the Secretary of State has taken it and announced it to the House. Why did he not take it when I first recommended it to him at the time of the closure? Did he take it today because he learned today or just before today the news of the Paris development, or did he take it today because we forced a debate and he knew that I would raise the matter?
  Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that in the past few months, there has been an active marketing exercise to promote the Siemens plant on north Tyneside as a viable plant for the microchip industry. While that was so, it would have been inappropriate to
  560
  reclaim the grant, because much of it was used specifically to develop the plant. He will know that just recently, Siemens took the decision to stop marketing the facility. In the light of that decision, officials in the Government regional office took action to reclaim the regional selective assistance. It was a matter in which I as Secretary of State was not involved. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the procedures are very clear. If the conditions are not met, officials act in accordance with the guidance set by Ministers. That is what has happened today, and that is why the claim has been made. The two events coincided.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Byers: I want to finish this point; it is important.
  The important point is that that £18 million will now come back to the Government. It will come back to the Department of Trade and Industry, not to the Treasury. We will be able to use the money this year to attract inward investment into the United Kingdom to safeguard jobs and provide new jobs.
  As I understand it, there are particular reasons why Siemens has entered into the joint venture on the Paris facility. I regret that it was unable to secure a joint venture to develop microchips at the north Tyneside plant. The Government did all that they could to find a new buyer of the facility. When the record is made public, as I hope that it will be in the not-too-distant future, my constituents and people in the north-east of England will see clearly that it was not for want of effort by the Government that we were unable to find a buyer, but as a result of commercial decisions taken at a high level by Siemens.
  Mr. Bruce: I am sure that the Secretary of State knows, as many hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies know, that when jobs go to France, one gets a lot of accusations that the French have unfairly subsidised jobs. Has the right hon. Gentleman investigated what subsidy is going into Siemens? Has he lodged a formal complaint with the European Commission on that?
  Mr. Byers: If there is a question of state aids being used in an inappropriate way, the Commissioner will need to investigate that. We have not yet seen the details of any agreement. We are relying on press reports at this stage. When we see the details, we will give close consideration to any subsidy.
  It is vital that in the next few months, we continue to give support to industry. The White Paper that we published before December showing how the knowledge-driven economy could be used set out the new model for public policy and support for industry. It showed how the Government could invest to build on British capabilities, especially our science and engineering base and our skills. It showed how the Government could promote greater competition, principally by empowering consumers, and how they could act as a catalyst to collaboration between businesses, encourage greater business-to-business learning and encourage businesses to work with higher education institutions.
  Success in tomorrow's fast-moving world depends critically on how well we exploit our most valuable and distinctive assets—our knowledge, including our world-class science base, our skills and our talent

  561
  for invention. The first industrial revolution was based on investment in plant, machinery and equipment; I have no doubt that the new knowledge-based revolution, through which we are now living, will require investment in human capital—in learning, skills and education. That is why the Government have committed an extra £19 billion to our schools, and the Department of Trade and Industry is committing extra money to improve workplace training, so that we have skills for the future.
  In his speech, the right hon. Member for Wokingham led us to believe that it is all doom and gloom, but it is most important to realise that, in the United Kingdom, we have a number of world-class companies in particular sectors. We lead the world in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology; a combination of market liberalisation and technical advance has created a number of world-beating businesses in our telecommunications industry; and we need only to look at Nissan, in Sunderland in the north-east of England, to see Europe's most productive car plant. We need to celebrate and support that sort of success, and we need it throughout the whole economy. The challenge for any Government is to try to lift the medium to the best; that is what we intend to do.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Byers: I want to make some progress so I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
  We need to focus on three key areas to raise our game. First, we must create an economic framework that rewards enterprise and promotes innovation and investment. Secondly, we must ensure that existing Government support for business is well tuned—especially to the needs of the manufacturing sector.
  Mr. George Stevenson: My right hon. Friend puts a powerful case—one that will receive the support of the House later this evening. I have two concerns on which I should be grateful for his comments: first, the growing trade deficit—especially in manufactures; secondly, the exchange rate, particularly in regard to European currencies—which is of particular concern in north Staffordshire.
  Mr. Byers: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. He has raised those matters with me privately. I understand that particular sectors face difficulties. However, he will be aware that the big appreciation in the value of the pound occurred before the general election. During the eight months running up to polling day, sterling appreciated against the deutschmark by about 22 per cent. Since the election, we have seen an appreciation of about 6 per cent. However, I am mindful of the problems. I hope to visit Stoke-on-Trent in the not too distant future, to see at first hand the particular problems faced by certain sectors.
  Mr. Bercow: Given the Secretary of State's reference to human capital, I am a little surprised that he does not perceive the damage to its flexible use that is posed by the burdensome regulations on working time. Will he take this opportunity to confirm that he is aware of the statement, in the Daily Mail on 21 April 1999, by Lord Haskins—a lifelong Labour supporter, the chairman of
  562
  Northern Foods and the chairman of the better regulation task force? The noble Lord said:
  "We were consulted on the Working Time laws, but our advice was ignored … Its all a bit of a dog's dinner."
  Mr. Byers: I understand that the noble Lord sells a great many dogs' dinners in his capacity as chairman of Northern Foods, so he probably knows far more about them than I do. I pointed out to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that we are reviewing the guidance on the working time directive. I believe that improvements can be made and that the changes that we shall introduce will be welcomed by business and employees alike. That is the role that we intend to take.
  I want to address the points made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham about trade. Those points are important at present, given the banana regime and the position taken recently in relation to the United States and hormone-treated beef.
  I believe that a shared commitment to open trade and orderly progress has been a driving force for growth, even in countries that not so long ago seemed to have been permanently left behind. Now, in many respects, that trend has stalled and, in some places, it has even been reversed, but I believe that to be a temporary setback, not a permanent condition. The essential answer to the problems we currently face is not less globalisation, nor new national structures to separate and isolate economies, but stronger international structures to make globalisation work in harder times, as well as in easy times. Our urgent need is closer co-operation, continuing dialogue and an unwavering commitment to open commerce. We must not let temporary instability put the global process at risk.
  In stormy economic weather, there are easy, but dangerous, shelters: a return to protectionism, the breakdown of co-operation, and the rise of beggar-thy-neighbour policies. That can only yield further worsening of the situation; it cannot lead to renewed growth. Let the House in a common spirit send out a clear message that protection anywhere is a threat to prosperity everywhere. Closing off national economies only increases national and international instability, and throughout the world, it is the poorest and most vulnerable members of society who suffer from financial crisis and stagnation. That is why we shall continue to work for a new round of trade liberalisation and better market access for our exporters of goods and services.
  Mr. David Heath: I wholly agree with the Secretary of State on trade liberalisation, but does he agree with me that free trade does not equate to the interests of American corporations? There must always be recognition of factors—social, environmental, and so on—that might mean that certain technologies are not appropriate to some countries. That protection must be available to those countries to use if they need to do so.
  Mr. Byers: There is the flexibility to take those factors into account within the procedures laid down the by the World Trade Organisation, and we shall ensure, during the new round of discussions that starts later this year, that those factors can continue be taken into account.
  I conclude on the subject of trade by making one point that is important in the light of recent events. I assure the House that we want improvements to be made to the

  563
  mechanisms for settling disputes, so that we can resolve differences without recourse to damaging retaliation. It will be in the interests of all of us to be able to avoid the difficulties that we have encountered in recent months.
  Mr. Paterson: I welcome the Secretary of State's comments on the benefits of world free trade. Does he consider that the unhappy episode over bananas could have been avoided if Britain had been a party to the North American Free Trade Agreement?
  Mr. Byers: I do not agree, because it would have meant that all sorts of pressures would have been applied, which would not have been helpful to our efforts in respect of the banana regime.
  This debate comes at a difficult time for the Conservative party. The modern Tory party is a family at war, sitting around their newly acquired kitchen table in a kitchen that has, yet again, been redecorated in an attempt to freshen up their image. The photograph of grandmother was dumped in the skip outside, but hastily retrieved by the head of the household when he faced a family rebellion. After the past 10 days, the message that the Leader of the Opposition needs to learn is clear: "If you can't stand the heat, you'd better get out of the kitchen."
  Despite all the noises offstage, the Government will not be diverted from our task. We believe that economic efficiency and social justice are two sides of the same coin. We are creating the climate in which businesses can prosper, creating jobs and providing sound public finances. The coalition that gave us victory in 1997 is still strong: as a party we are united and as a Government we are delivering on our promises. Government carries with it great responsibilities and burdens of state, and we shall discharge those responsibilities on behalf of our people and our country. I commend the amendment to the House.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Paul Keetch: There were times during the past hour and three quarters when I wondered whether I would get in before the winding-up speeches. I begin with a word of warning to the Secretary of State: he should be careful about attacking the Leader of the Opposition. Some of us in this place believe he is doing a fine job and would like to see him remain in his position. I think the people of this country certainly recognise the Leader of the Opposition for what he is.
  I want to explore what the motion means in terms of industry, job losses, youth unemployment and the new deal. Before I do so, I must admit that I think some parts of the motion are a bit rich. Liberal Democrat Members remember how the previous Government wrote off more than 2.5 million jobs in manufacturing over 18 years, so we find the Conservatives new concern for the unemployed rather stomach-turning.
  The motion describes some of the problems in industry, but it fails to mention several difficulties that we believe are intrinsic to British industry at present—poor productivity, low investment in research and development and low skills levels.
  Let us look at a few facts. The United Kingdom produces less per person than most other major economies. Our productivity gap of 40 per cent. with the
  564
  United States and more than 20 per cent. with France and Germany reflects a long-standing weakness in our economy. The United Kingdom invests less in research and development than our competitors. For example, the United States invests 50 per cent. more of its GDP in R and D than we do. The United States and Germany invest 40 per cent. more per worker in new capital equipment than the United Kingdom.
  The skills gap in this country is fast becoming a yawning chasm. Some 22 per cent. of adults in the United Kingdom have poor literacy skills, which is twice as many as in Germany. Yet to listen to the Opposition, one would think that those problems began on 1 May 1997. The fact is that many of the weaknesses in the British economy date from the years of Tory mismanagement. While we are not totally happy with everything that the new Government are doing, we accept that they are trying to make a start.
  Manufacturing industry is in recession and output is predicted to fall by between 1 per cent. and 1.5 per cent. in 1999. As a direct result, instead of remaining flat, unemployment is likely to rise by 250,000. In its latest press release published last Friday, the Trades Union Congress states:
  "Britain is now a two speed two-nation economy. The slowdown in the coming year will further hit those areas with the greatest dependence on manufacturing. Manufacturing is moving into recession and the service area is continuing to expand."
  The TUC calls it a two-speed economy, but, in a debate last year, I called it a Jekyll and Hyde economy. London and the south-east are becoming more prosperous while the north east and the west midlands are suffering.
  For example, unemployment has risen by 3.7 per cent. in the north east of England in the past six months and by 3.3 per cent. in the west midlands. That area has lost nearly 4,000 jobs, but London and the south-east have gained more than 7,000 jobs in the same period. It is not just the traditional heavy industry or the metal-bashing areas of those regions that have been affected; light industry and manufacturing is also being hurt. The Secretary of State and the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities will know that the Thorn Lighting plant in Hereford may close, with the loss of 348 jobs. I accept the support that the Secretary of State and the Minister have offered, but we cannot afford to lose that kind of industry in a rural constituency.
  Mention has also been made this afternoon of Siemens. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have examples of company closures in their constituencies, and that trend must not be allowed to continue.
  In the Prime Minister's constituency, and in the constituencies of 105 other Members of Parliament, more than 30 per cent. of workers are employed in the manufacturing sector. According to the TUC study, "Jobs in Jeopardy", the right hon. Gentleman can expect economic hardship to increase in his constituency over the next 12 months. The Chancellor sometimes claims that those problems are due to the collapse of the global market and the failures of Asia, Russia or Latin America. However, the fact is that the United Kingdom exports more to the Netherlands than to those areas combined. The Treasury's own figures reveal that our key export markets are growing by a rate of nearly 6 per cent. a year, but the UK's take-up of that new business is barely 0.5 per cent. In our key export markets, therefore, British business is losing opportunities for growth.

  565
  The reasons for that are clearly the high value of sterling and high interest rates. The value of sterling is today 10 per cent. higher than it was when the Government came into office, and with interest rates still 2.5 per cent. higher than those in the rest of Europe, the extra cost of investment adds to our lack of competitiveness. The Government know what they have to do: they must now set a time scale for British entry into the single European currency, which will remove the burdens of an over-valued pound and high interest rates.
  Mr. Stevenson: If, as I suspect, the hon. Gentleman is urging the Government to support immediate entry into the single currency, at what exchange rate does he think sterling should be locked in?
  Mr. Keetch: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to consider that matter very carefully, and I insist that the Treasury should now start to prepare for entry. Our concerns are that we have not started preparations and that we do not have the information to make the necessary assessments. That is why I and other hon. Members have called for a White Paper.
  Mr. Bercow: The point to which the hon. Gentleman refers is absolutely fundamental to an understanding of the issues and a recommendation for policy action. Does he believe that Britain should enter the euro on the basis of exchange rate mechanism mid-rates, and if not, what is his alternative? Is he not aware that all the countries that have entered in the first wave have done so at ERM mid-rates, and a specific derogation would be required if we were to enter on a different basis? I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands these issues.
  Mr. Keetch: We are now almost two hours into the debate and only Front-Bench Members have made speeches, so I do not want to be diverted into a debate about the euro. I signed an early-day motion proposed by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) which called for more information on the issue, and Liberal Democrat Members have criticised the Government, as we criticised the previous Government, for not producing information about the euro.
  Mr. Paterson: Will Liberal Democrat Members read the treaty of Amsterdam? If the hon. Gentleman reads article 118 and paragraph 4 of article 123, he will find that we are bound by the treaty to enter at the basket rate—which means the median rate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said—and any derogation from that must be passed unanimously by all other existing members. We are therefore bound, at present, to enter at a rate of DM2.95 to £1 sterling, which would be catastrophic for the potters in Staffordshire.
  Mr. Keetch: I suppose that it is all my fault for mentioning the single European currency. I have now taken interventions from precisely half the Tory Back Benchers in the Chamber.
  Mr. McNulty: Two thirds.
  Mr. Keetch: Indeed, two thirds. I assure the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) that if he sends me those articles, I will read them.
  566
  I return now to the Conservative motion on youth unemployment and the new deal. According to the Conservatives, the new deal has failed to reduce unemployment. The charge in the motion repeats that made on the radio this morning by the Conservative employment spokesman. We commissioned research on youth unemployment from the Library.
  Mr. McNulty: Will the hon. Gentleman do a bit on the euro?
  Mr. Keetch: Yes, I shall do a bit on the euro.
  In response to the Conservative spokesman's comments this morning, I have to say that the Tories have got it wrong. It is true that unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds who have been out of work for less than six months has risen by 10 per cent. since the general election. However, the new deal is for those who have been unemployed for longer than six months, and in that category, unemployment has fallen by over 58 per cent. since the general election.
  Mr. Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman did not need to go to the Library; he could have read the unemployment figures when they came out last week. They reveal that the number of 18 to 24-year-olds who have been unemployed for between six and 12 months—they are pretty much the target for the new deal—has increased since the new deal was introduced last April. If the hon. Gentleman studies the figures and uses the Government's preferred unemployment rate, he will find that he is wrong in saying that the number of those unemployed for longer than six months has fallen.
  Mr. Keetch: Again, 1 refer to the Library's figures. I started by considering what had happened since the election. Before the hon. Gentleman intervened, I was about to say that between April 1998—when, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the new deal went national—and February 1999, the number of claimants aged between 18 and 24 halved. Youth unemployment is coming down.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Keetch: No; I will not.
  There may be some anxiety over the definition of youth, but even in the number of claimants aged 16 and 17, there has been a 3 per cent. fall in unemployment, and in those aged between 25 and 29 there has been a 19 per cent. fall in unemployment.
  On the radio this morning, responding to the shadow Employment Secretary's views, the Minister said that they were just plain wrong. For once, I agree with the Minister about the Conservatives' views.
  However, we do not believe that all in the new deal garden is rosy, and we have tried to make some constructive changes. We believe that too many people are leaving the gateway. It was expected that 40 per cent. might leave, but 93 per cent. are leaving. We want to know what is happening to the 29 per cent. of those who leave new deal for destinations unknown. We want to know why, although the planners expected 20 per cent. of those involved in the new deal to take the education and training option, more than double that percentage—

  567
  49 per cent.—are doing so. We also want to know why ethnic minorities seem to be getting a poor deal. However, only slight alterations need to be made.
  Many of the problems that we have suggested may be occurring, arise from the scheme's introduction. It is too early to say that the new deal is working, but it is also too early to say that it is a failure.
  In conclusion, industry is certainly failing, but for the Conservative party to suggest that it is the new Government's doing is ridiculous. The Tory party must take account of its responsibility for the underlying weaknesses in British industry. That is why the Liberal Democrats will oppose the motion.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: There is an air of unreality about the debate, arising as it does from an Opposition motion decrying job losses.
  I represent an area that has still to recover from the haemorrhage of job losses in the early 1980s. Thanks to the entrepreneurial skills of British industry—rarely the abilities of British Governments—the country as a whole now has more jobs than it had in 1979; but in areas that still depend heavily on manufacturing industry, such as the area that I have the privilege to represent, a massive job deficit persists, thanks to the way in which the Tories behaved in government, especially in relation to the exchange rate. Therefore it ill behoves them, when they face a Labour Government who can report an overall increase in jobs during their stewardship, to try to pass motions of censure.
  In Birkenhead, we are still 2,000 full-time-jobs short compared with when the Tories came to power in 1979. Whereas there has been a massive increase in part-time jobs in the rest of the country, there has actually been a slight fall in the number of such jobs in Birkenhead.
  When we talk about the new deal, we are talking about a Government who are trying to help people throughout the country, but especially in areas where it is very difficult indeed to get jobs.
  I congratulate the Government on the new deal, on four counts. First, long-term unemployment has been abolished among those under 25. It might mean nothing to Conservative Members, but it means a great deal to my constituents that the era when it was enough merely to pay benefits and forget about people is over. That era of long-term unemployment has drawn to a close; on those grounds, I thank the Government.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Field: No. I think that there have been far too many interventions in the debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech.
  Secondly, I congratulate the Government on transforming what has been primarily a reactive welfare system into a proactive one. When the welfare state was established, the vast majority of people claiming benefit were pensioners, and it was totally proper that we focused on delivering benefits effectively. Now the vast majority of people drawing benefit are below retirement age.
  568
  Merely paying benefit is simply not good enough. The new deal represents a significant shift from a reactive to a proactive welfare system. It is not good enough for the Opposition merely to talk about the number of people who have moved from the new deal into jobs, though that is significant. This programme is about changing the whole culture of welfare and people drawing welfare. I congratulate the Government on that count.
  Thirdly, this Government—of any Government—have devised the most effective and humane way to counter benefit fraud. Previous Governments fired randomly at claimants. Some people were cheating and some were not. People were driven off and we did not know whether they should have been claiming benefit or not. We now have a system whereby people are offered a full-time option at the end of their gateway process. On average, about a third of claimants cease claiming when they have to take a full-time option.
  It is clear that many of those claimants have jobs. In my constituency of Birkenhead, the figure rises to slightly more than 50 per cent. The Government have come up with what the electorate have been longing for: a system that genuinely tries to help those who want to work, but cannot, and, at the same time, deals effectively with those who are drawing benefit while working.
  I congratulate the Government, fourthly, because, through new deal, genuine entrepreneurial skills are being developed by the benefit staff themselves. It is a real pleasure to talk to them about what they are doing, what they are achieving and how they are able to help. They take pride in the operation that they can now offer.
  We have abolished long-term unemployment, as it was known, for the under-25s and we are moving from a passive to proactive welfare system. We are helping those who genuinely want work and the Government have devised the most effective way of countering fraud. Entrepreneurial skills are being developed in the public sector. On all those counts, I congratulate the Government.
  In the few more minutes of the House's time that I want to take, I merely wish to make a plea about how I should like welfare-to-work mark 2 to develop. The Government are considering that issue and some announcements, which are seeing us into that second stage, have been made. These are my suggestions.
  First, I am concerned, as we all are, about the number of people on welfare to work who move from the gateway into the subsidised job option. We know that making that move is the most effective way of getting a long-term job after the subsidised job is finished. The proportion of people on that option has fallen from about 50 per cent. to 15 per cent. Why is that? Have all the employers with jobs to offer already come forward, is there only a particular stock of jobs available under that option at any one time, and do we need to talk much more carefully to individual employers about why they do not want people from the dole queue or from welfare to work? I should like the Government to think seriously about that. I could develop some other ideas, but other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Secondly, I want the Government to be much tougher on those who have already worked out how to get back on to benefit without taking the option. In the Wirral we know which doctors are signing people off sick for 13 weeks so that they can return to benefits afterwards.

  569
  Although it is difficult to do that at the moment, can we have an assurance that people who have been on welfare to work and leave when they are offered a full-time option will be immediately offered that option whenever they return to the welfare rolls—within a year, for example? Such people should have to make that choice. They should not have the choice of spending six months unemployed and four months in the gateway before having to choose whether to go for the full-time option.
  Thirdly, I make a plea to Ministers to think about shortening the gateway. Most claimants have four hours of interviews during the gateway. Why does it have to last four months? It had to at the beginning, because we were trying something new, but we are offering only five hours of interviews during four months. Could not we shorten the gateway? That would make welfare to work much more effective.
  Fourthly, may I make a plea for us simply to give the whole budget to offices that are clearly developing entrepreneurial skills—including the benefit budget—so enabling them to run welfare-to-work schemes? Let me give two examples relating to the Birkenhead office. It cannot allow people on training schemes to apply for driving licences. I understand why that is not done on a national basis, but in Birkenhead there are jobs waiting to be taken by people with driving licences. If local offices had real control over their budgets, they would arrange courses specifically for people who could apply for known jobs.
  This is my second example. There are, thank God, some unskilled jobs waiting to be filled in north Wales, but there is no easy transport to north Wales. An entrepreneurial manager wants to lay on a bus, which would be taken up later by someone else who found that profit could be derived from it, and we would be able to fill the vacancies from Birkenhead. We should begin to trust staff who show that they have real entrepreneurial skills in mark 2 of our welfare-to-work scheme.
  Finally, let me make a plea on behalf of claimants who, having done everything in their power to make the scheme a success and having done all that is required of them, do not ultimately secure a job of any kind. Can we stop allowing them to languish for two months, as we do now, before introducing them to what they will consider to be no more than a treadmill? Can we think imaginatively in regard to mark 2? Can we link subsidies to individual workers, empowering them to go out and see whether they can find an employer when everyone else has failed to find an employer for them?
  I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the welfare-to-work programme, which has proved remarkable in many ways. We could, of course, make some criticisms, but, in view of the significant advances that have been made, they would be carping criticisms. Given the success of mark 1, many of us are anxious to discuss constructively with the Government how mark 2 might develop: indeed, many of us cannot wait for that discussion to begin.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Owen Paterson: One industry is being devastated by the Government's policies. The state of that industry underlines all that Conservative Members have said about the fact that the Government do not understand business, and do not understand the impact
  570
  that their policies are already having throughout the country. I refer to the road haulage industry, which employs 500,000 drivers and another 500,000 staff in warehouses and offices.
  In a debate on Tuesday this week, much was made of the fact that the fuel duty escalator was introduced by the last Government at 3 per cent. The haulier named in the now infamous KPMG report which, since last Wednesday's debate, the Government no longer mention—it was not referred to on Tuesday—has given me figures showing that in 1994 only Spain and Luxembourg had cheaper fuel than the United Kingdom. That is a startling contrast with the present situation. The United Kingdom now has easily the most expensive diesel in Europe. The difference is astonishing. Let us consider the cost of filling a 1,200-litre lorry with two tanks. The difference between the cost here and the cost in Luxembourg is £350.40; the figures for Belgium and France are £330 and £267.60 respectively.
  Since last week's debate, the haulier named in that famous report has been taking steps to move his whole business to Luxembourg. During our debates, several senior members of the Government told us that the fuel duty did not really matter, and that vehicle excise duty did not matter, because we had lower business costs, lower insurance costs and lower corporation tax.
  I shall show the House that the Government are completely wrong. The Deputy Prime Minister, who may not be the brightest, gave us figures during Prime Minister's questions showing that Belgium and Holland had business costs that were unaccountably £800,000 and £600,000 more expensive that ours. [Interruption.] I should be most grateful to the Minister if he would listen while I explain the difference.
  Vehicle excise duty in Luxembourg is £226 as against £5,750 in this country. This man runs 90 trucks, so that is a £497,000 difference. He buys 4.5 million litres of diesel a year, and the difference on that is more than £1.3 million. The savings on fuel and VED by operating trucks in Luxembourg is £1,811,160.
  Set against that is the savings on a driver paid £330 a week, his pension and national insurance contributions, and the insurance on the vehicle, which would give an advantage over Luxembourg of about £14.20 per week per driver. This man generously told me that he made a profit last year of £400,000, so the saving on corporation tax, which is 30 per cent. in this country and 33 per cent. in Luxembourg, is only £12,000.
  The total United Kingdom saving is £78,456, giving this man the benefit of a £1,732,704 saving by moving his entire business to Luxembourg. If my figures are wrong, I should like the Minister to prove it. He should put in the Library the back-up figures for the Deputy Prime Minister's claim that cheaper social and running costs outweigh the disadvantages of more expensive VED and petrol duty.
  It is sad that such a successful export business is moving abroad. The man was quite clear. He said that the Chief Secretary's comments in the debate the other night were stupid, and that they showed that the Government were not going to listen—"therefore I'm off".
  As for the impact on other hauliers, I shall quote my constituent, Dave Yarwood from Maesbury. He said:
  "Companies are in business to make a profit, nobody minds paying tax on profit. Indirect taxation however is making it impossible for some businesses to make a profit in the first place."

  571
  Figures from the Library show a dramatic increase in the number of foreign-registered trucks leaving this country. In 1997, there were 597,000, and for the four quarters ending quarter three 1998 there were 690,000. That is an astonishing increase, and it is due to the benefits of cabotage, which as free traders we welcome. However, the Government have not taken on board the impact of cabotage. Foreign trucks with the benefit of cheaper VED and dramatically cheaper fuel can come to this country and will wipe out our hauliers. Our hauliers will go.
  Mr. Stevenson: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House which Government agreed to remove cabotage restrictions in the United Kingdom for road haulage?
  Mr. Paterson: The Conservative Government. I am a total supporter of cabotage, because I believe in free trade. Cabotage will work only if there is a level playing field. The Government have manacled our hauliers behind both ankles, so they cannot compete.
  Ms Claire Ward: With his reference to a level playing field, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there should be tax harmonisation across Europe?
  Mr. Paterson: I am in favour of taxes being as low as possible in all countries. I salute the socialist Government in France. I have a cutting from Figaro of 29 September 1998, which says that the French Government introduced a rebate so that French truckers could compete with truckers in Luxembourg.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it would be helpful to the debate if the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) were to understand that we want lower taxes here? We do not think it our business to encourage other member states of the European Union to make their taxes higher. It is a blindingly obvious point, and I hope that the hon. Lady can grasp it.
  Mr. Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. However, as other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall move on to deal with another matter.
  The Government also claim that the measure—by providing a rebate for converting engines to use ultra-low sulphur diesel, for example—will create great environmental benefits. However, it costs £4,000 to convert a euro 1 engine, and £3,500 to convert a euro 2 engine. It is therefore not surprising that very few hauliers are tempted by the Government's offer of a £1,000 rebate as compensation.
  One haulier said:
  "We have been given a £1,000 reduction per vehicle annually if we fit a particulate trap to reduce emissions. This will cost £2,500 per vehicle, is guaranteed for 12 months only, is unreliable and may not be compatible with our vehicles. It is not cost effective."
  The measure is also not environmentally effective, as more crude oil has to be cracked to create ultra-low sulphur diesel than ordinary diesel. Worse still, Mobil CNG estimates that ultra-low sulphur diesel is 4 per cent. to 7 per cent. less efficient. A large haulier in Sheffield converted 130 38-tonne trucks and reported an 8 per cent. increase in fuel consumption, costing him £250,000 in the
  572
  first year. It is yet another case of the Government not getting their facts right, not understanding how things work, and creating extra costs for a successful British business.
  Mr. Derek Foster: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's case on fuel. I think—as I said in my speech immediately after the Budget—that our Government made a big mistake in taking that action, which is also undermining our making work pay strategy for the working poor in my rural constituency. However, is this not an unreal debate? Successive Governments have perpetrated a deception upon the electorate—that it is possible to have superb public services and to reduce taxation. The truth is that the taxation burden has increased year after year—under the Thatcher Government, under the Major Government, and now under our own Government. Why do we not tell people the truth—that we cannot have good education and good health without paying for them? Why do we not get them to pay for those services by the most just means—by increasing personal taxation?
  Mr. Paterson: I am most grateful for that intervention by the right hon. Gentleman, who has made the most pertinent point—that the Government think that they have found a golden-egg laying goose that will not bite back. The Government are taking £36 billion from road users, but are reinvesting in roads a paltry £6 billion.
  Ms Ward: The hon. Gentleman mentioned golden eggs. Has he perhaps forgotten that the previous Government introduced the fuel duty escalator?
  Mr. Paterson: With deepest respect, had the hon. Lady been listening to my earlier remarks, she would know that I said that, at that time, only two other countries in Europe had lower diesel costs than ours and that the policy worked. Now, we have by far the most expensive diesel in Europe, but are not achieving environmental benefit because of it.
  We are trying to achieve, based on 1990 figures, a 12.5 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions. According to the Library, the 1990 emissions total was 159 million tonnes, of which only 30 million tonnes were caused by road transport—of which only 16 per cent. came from freight. Therefore, eliminating the freight element would reduce carbon emissions by a maximum of only 5 million tonnes. The Government's policy does not make any environmental sense.
  In our debates on the issue, the Government have also trumpeted their creation of a forum. We were told that the Government had listened, and understood that industry was in crisis, and that they had consequently instantly reacted. However, the facts paint a somewhat different picture. The forum has met only once, and under some duress. Three senior members with trucking businesses—the chairman of the Road Haulage Association, the president of the Freight Transport Association, and another senior haulier—were banned from the meeting. There was no agenda for the meeting, of which no minutes were published. No further meetings or agendas were planned. All we know is that, today, a meeting has been announced between civil servants and one of the senior members of a trade association.

  573
  The Government do not care about industry. They were interested only in having the spin and catch-phrase that "a forum has been established".
  When the Minister replies, will he let me know what the future programme for the forum is, and what the Government intend to do about an industry that has been brought to its knees? An uncompetitive transport industry affects every business in the country.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: What a curious lot the Opposition are. Instead of concentrating their fire power sensibly, as their depleted numbers would suggest that they might, they have brought to the House a cumbersome portmanteau of a motion. In academic publishing in recent years it has been the custom to roll out titles in threes, to give them a sort of spurious quality that they would not otherwise possess. The title of the Opposition debate, citing job losses, the state of industry and the new deal, falls squarely into that category.
  It is remarkable how much time the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) spent in working out his own equivalent of the Henry Root letters. The rest of his speech consisted of the amnesiacs' almanac of the Tory Government's failures over the 18 years before the present Government came to power.
  It is interesting that the Tory motion recommends a change of policy. I suppose it is a start to discover that they at least have a policy to which they can recommend we change. In view of the events of the past week, the only problem is: which policy is that? Is it the policy of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude)? Is it the policy of the right hon. Member for Wokingham, the policy of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), or the policy of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith)?
  During the debate, the Opposition have not told us whether the market will provide. Until they settle that conundrum, perhaps Tory central office had better update the old advertising slogan: "If you want to be vague, ask for Hague."
  The three key areas of the debate are business, employment and the new deal. Under the previous Government, we were told that the market would provide. I ran a small business, employing eight people, for 12 years under that Government, and I have in my constituency about 1,500 small bed-and-breakfast establishments, hotels and guest houses, so I know that hundreds of such businesses went to the wall in those years under the previous Government's yo-yoing exchange rates and lack of organised economic policy.
  The Conservatives gave us long-term interest rates 2 per cent. higher than those of Germany and France, and the worst share of world trade this century. In 1994, the gross product investment was only 15 per cent.—less than that in any other industrialised country. The present Government have introduced policies that lock in long-term stability at macro level. That is why we introduced operational independence for the Bank of England. We cannot abolish the business cycle, but we can reduce its amplitude. Let us contrast that with the monetarist-driven boom and bust of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost. Today, inflation is close to the target of 2.5 per cent. and long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 40 years.
  574
  Micro policy reforms are also central to the Government's agenda. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spelt those out, as he has on many occasions. They involve education, training, access to capital and labour markets, product market competition, and investment in infrastructure and in science and technology. The Government realise that there is no reason not to invest in labour. Investing in labour is the most important thing, although the previous Government thought that tax breaks for capital were all that mattered.
  Let us think about employment and manufacturing industry. In my constituency many people work for British Aerospace, a key employer involved with the Eurofighter. The Government have been particularly successful in that area. In 1998 they introduced a public-private partnership, with £123 million being spent on design and development of the wings of the A340 airliner. By February this year, the 2,000th airbus wing had been completed; 556 aircraft were ordered in 1998, and £39 billion worth of orders have been generated worldwide. At the beginning of this week, Airbus launched the A318 aircraft, with 109 orders—more than had originally been suggested.
  The Government have done an enormous amount in the Budget for small businesses, including the new lop rate of corporation tax, the new Small Business Service to improve Government's approach to small businesses, the automated payroll service, and the extension of 40 per cent. first-year capital allowances for another year. Those are welcome and important measures.
  The Opposition have been scornful about the new deal but even they have not dared to attack it directly.
  Mr. Green: Just wait.
  Mr. Marsden: The hon. Gentleman may wish to chance his arm later in the debate. It is perhaps not surprising that the Opposition have been diffident about attacking the new deal, in view of the success that it has engendered. Given the Opposition's cynicism, it is surprising that they have not ventured their arm a bit more. They ran no fewer than 29 different employment and training schemes between 1979 and 1997. Those schemes still left the unemployment figures higher when the Conservatives left office, whereas the new deal is probably the most ambitious, concentrated and structured programme for the lifetime of a Government that has been put forward since the second world war.
  Tory policies were designed to massage the jobless statistics and put people on schemes of little value. The unemployment unit of Youth Aid has described the way in which the Tories cynically encouraged many hundreds of thousands of unemployed people into economic inactivity and long-term reliance on breadline benefits. That should be contrasted with what we have done with the new deal. By Easter this year, 300,000 people had joined the new deal, including 250,000 young people. Nearly 60,000 young people are already in jobs and a further 40,000 are in other training and education options. In Blackpool, more than 200 people had left the gateway to start jobs by this Easter.
  We saw many crocodile tears from the right hon. Member for Wokingham about manufacturing industry, but the new deal has also been of key importance in

  575
  service industries. That is crucial in my constituency. Government initiatives to improve the quality and availability of training are crucial to competitiveness in the tourist industry. The flexibility of the new deal on seasonal employment and its training and employment options—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his response to this issue—has been especially beneficial. The British Hospitality Association estimates that the new deal could create between 7,000 and 10,000 jobs in the tourism sector. In my constituency, a further education institute is gearing itself to become a centre of excellence for tourism-related qualifications. The good work that I have seen at Blackpool and Fylde college is a good example of that.
  The April issue of Youth Aid's "Working Brief' gives a detailed comparison of the job figures and the labour trends. It states that the new deal figures enable
  "us to identify that the progress of New Deal eligible young people into jobs from the Jobseeker's Allowance count has been stronger than that for either older long-term unemployed or than shorter-term unemployed people of whichever age.
  Furthermore, this strong progress into jobs has not been at the expense of the older, long-term unemployed, as had been feared."
  I have described some of the specific, noticeable and measurable successes that we have already had with the new deal. The Conservatives have no answer to that. They have no answer to the criticisms that have been made of their previous policies for business and employment. We have been told several times this week, as they have got deeper and deeper into trouble, that their policies represent a seamless web with those of the great leader, but—in the 20th anniversary year of Thatcherism—that web has become hopelessly tangled and formless. It is like the cobwebs on the tables of Miss Havisham's wedding feast, but now the jilted bride is not Charlotte Rampling but she who would once be obeyed. It is eight years since the Conservatives did the dirty deed, but they still cannot decide whether they have come to praise Caesar or to bury her. They can try as much as they like this afternoon to run from the sterile legacy of Thatcherism, but they cannot hide from the statistics over which they presided and which we have referred to this afternoon. Those statistics show how unwise they were to table this motion in the first place.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I shall be brief, as I know that we are reaching the end of the debate. I shall begin by discussing the new deal in Northern Ireland.
  I have been worried about the closure of a number of the action for community employment schemes, which have benefited many of the deprived areas that have suffered as a result of 30 years of terrorist violence. However, I welcome today's announcement by the Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office, with responsibility for education and training. He has made available a funding package of £9.6 million to strengthen the delivery arrangements for the new deal in the Province and to underpin the transition from the ACE schemes to the new deal. I welcome that, both for my constituents and for people in many parts of Northern Ireland. There had been concerns about the inadequacies of the new deal arrangements in comparison with the very valuable
  576
  community services provided by ACE schemes. I hope that the additional money will help the transition and that it will enable the valuable work done under many of the ACE schemes to continue under the new deal arrangements.
  The available statistics cover only the period up to the end of January. They show that almost 9,000 young people in Northern Ireland had taken up the opportunities provided by the new deal scheme by that time, and I hope that many of them will go on to find long-term employment.
  However, the problem in Northern Ireland is that the level of unemployment remains very high. The problem is especially acute in those parts of the Province that have suffered from a lack of investment. Attracting new industry is very high on the agenda when it comes to tackling unemployment in Northern Ireland. 1 encourage the Government to give even greater priority to the need to attract that investment.
  In addition, I hope that the Government will provide significant and adequate support for local businesses. Most of the new jobs being provided in Northern Ireland are in small, indigenous businesses that want to expand but are finding it difficult to do so. Especially heavy is the impact of increasing transport costs, on which industry—and especially small business—in Northern Ireland is so dependent. I shall return to that problem in a moment.
  Dependence on service-related industries in Northern Ireland is too high, which is why it is important, in the attempt to attract new industry, to bolster the manufacturing sector and make it even more competitive. There have been significant job losses in the industrial sector, not helped by the recent demise of Mackies, one of the largest and most renowned businesses in Belfast. I hope that something can be done to rescue that firm, especially given that it is located in a part of Belfast with very high unemployment.
  Economic growth and manufacturing output in Northern Ireland have slowed in the past couple of years. It is important that the Government, in helping business to overcome its difficulties, recognise the damage that increased fuel duties do to industry. That is especially evident in a region such as Northern Ireland, where transport is so vital to the ability to compete in the wider market place. In Northern Ireland, £100 will purchase about 139 litres of diesel, compared with the 229 litres that it will buy in the Irish Republic, our nearest neighbour. That shows how difficult is the problem faced by road hauliers and industry generally in Northern Ireland.
  I hope that the Government will do something to address that problem. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom that has a land boundary with another European Union member state. We are working in a competitive environment, and crippling transport costs blunt our ability to compete. We will face job losses in the coming weeks, particularly in the haulage industry, unless the Government address spiralling fuel costs.
  Let me turn to the impact of devolution on our ability to attract inward investment to all regions of the United Kingdom. My party is concerned that devolved Assemblies in Northern Ireland and Wales and a Parliament in Scotland may mean increased competition

  577
  between the regions of the UK. That competition will affect not only the three regions with devolved assemblies; it will affect the English regions too.
  The Minister and his colleagues are working to establish liaison between the regions on inward investment, and I should like to know what progress has been made. The last thing the UK needs is English, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assembly members and Ministers going to Europe and the rest of the world to compete with each other, spending British taxpayers' money as they try to win jobs for different regions.
  That would be a desperate waste of resources, and I hope that the Minister will address liaison and co-operation between the regions of the UK. We are not against competitiveness, but money must not be wasted as we go after the same jobs for different regions of the UK.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I have three minutes, so shall make my comments brief. I want to offer two examples from my experience of working with young unemployed people who are among the most vulnerable members of our community—those who have left care.
  I had some experience of the 29 failed employment programmes run by the previous Government. In one case that sticks vividly in my memory, we had worked for many months with a young person who wanted to develop a career in retail. We arranged for him to start on a Government-financed programme. It involved four days a week at work and one day a week in college. After three weeks, he gave up because all he had done was wash cars on a garage forecourt. He had not learned about customer care; he had not learned about stock control; he had not learned about marketing. He did not tell us what had gone wrong because he did not want to let down his carers or his social worker. The problem was that we had no staff to find out or monitor the quality of that placement, and that was often the case. There was no investment, so there is no comparison between that example and the new deal.
  I recently met a young man who had been taken on by a construction company. He had been unemployed for more than two years. He had lost confidence and he was up to his neck in debt. Staff who had worked closely with the construction company were impressed by the support given. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities knows all about the revolution that has happened among jobcentre staff in my constituency and how well they work with employers.
  That young man asked me why new deal had not been brought in years ago. We all know the answer. What a contrast young people will see come the next general election. We have a minimum wage, a new deal and fairness at work. Compare that with £1 an hour, hire and fire and washing cars. What a difference between us and the Tories.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Damian Green: It has been instructive to listen to most of the speeches from Labour Members this evening, starting with the Secretary of State, since many of them have wanted to talk about anything other than the Government's record on industry and employment. There are honourable exceptions, however, such as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)
  578
  and my near neighbour in Kent, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). Kentish Members are always good value. Characteristically, also, we have had from the Liberal Democrat Benches simply a feeble echo of some of the Government's less good arguments.
  I will speak about the new deal because the Government's miserable industrial record has already been comprehensively demolished by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and, in the specific context of the road haulage industry, by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson).
  There is a link between the two halves of this debate and it is betrayal. Just as the Government are betraying British manufacturing industry with higher taxes and regulations, so they are betraying the young unemployed with a crude, ineffective and expensive new deal programme.
  The Minister and I have spent the day trading statistics. The House should beware of any new deal figures. There is a most instructive article in today's Financial Times which shows that the basis on which the new deal is calculated is bogus. The success that the Government claim for the new deal is those who go into unsubsidised jobs. An article that comes from a briefing from the Minister's own Department reveals that the category of those who have found jobs include people who got a job on their own initiative after being invited to the new deal interview but before the interview happened, those who got jobs at the interview but without real help and—this is a good one—those who have been working full-time and claiming fraudulently but have used the interview invitation to announce that they have just found work, as well as those for whom the new deal has proved a genuine success. The Department admits that it cannot split the figures into these different categories, so it just claims all those categories as successes for the new deal.
  The Minister claims that youth unemployment has come and is coming down, and I can half agree with him. Youth unemployment has fallen consistently in the 1990s. I hope that he will agree with me why it has fallen: it is because the previous Government cut business taxes and business regulations and made Britain the best place for inward investment. The previous Conservative Government made it easy for businesses to create jobs. The result was that, between April 1993 and May 1997, unemployment among young people fell by 240,000. That is a significant figure, because the Government's target for the new deal job placements, assuming they can ever measure them correctly, is 250,000. That reveals that the Conservative Government achieved the target of creating 250,000 or so new jobs for young people without extracting billions of pounds in extra taxes from productive industry.
  I would not want to say that the new deal is making no difference. During the last Conservative Government, the monthly average for young people moving off the unemployment count was 33,000. Since the new deal has been introduced, the figure has been just under 20,000. The new deal has made a difference: it means that fewer

  579
  young people are moving off the unemployment count every month than did so under the Conservative Government.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend will have heard me challenge the Secretary of State on the International Labour Organisation figures, according to which unemployment among young people has increased by 12,000. He prefers table 11, which shows the claimant count. According to it, over the past year, unemployment has decreased by 14,000, but it does not say that the 36,950 on non-employment options who have been taken off the claimant count need to be added in. In fact, unemployment, with that added back in, has increased by 22,000 under the claimant count figures, too.
  Mr. Green: That is a valid point. The Government say that their preferred measure of unemployment is that of the ILO, under which youth unemployment has gone up under the new deal. As my hon. Friend said, if we include the real figures under the claimant count—the figure that the Government suddenly prefer—it has gone up, too. Their argument is bogus.
  I do not claim that fewer people are leaving the unemployment register entirely because of the new deal. It is mostly because the Government are making it more difficult to employ people. The point is that the new deal is not solving the problem. The Government are trying to deny failing to meet their basic pledge. We have had arguments about statistics, not least from the Liberal Democrats. In such circumstances, I always feel that, to get to the heart of the Government's policy, one should examine their pledge card. I see that they have a new one which announces flatly that youth unemployment has been halved with the new deal. That is simply and flatly untrue. General youth unemployment has risen since the new deal was introduced. The Government have already broken one of their five pledges. I am sure that the electorate will take note of that in next week's local elections and in all future elections.
  There are more subtle ways in which the new deal is failing. It is not making young people more employable. Both parties want to make young people more employable. Training and education are central to the new deal philosophy, but what happens to those who take the training option? On today's figures, two thirds do not find a job at the end of it. They will stop coming if they do not do so. Today's new deal figures show that 34 per cent. of those who entered it went to destinations unknown to the Department. Even if they found jobs, the new deal was so useless that they could not be bothered to pick up the phone to tell their employment adviser, "Thanks for finding us a job."
  More damningly, 13 per cent. have gone straight back on to welfare. With great respect to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, this is not welfare to work; for too many young people, the new deal is welfare to welfare. By the end of February, of those on it the longest—the first cohort from January 1998—3 per cent. were still on the gateway, which is meant to last four months, and 12 per cent. were on follow-through. That means that they had been all the way around and back again. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that that is not abolishing long-term unemployment, but redefining it.
  580
  The Government know that business is becoming increasingly disillusioned. Allied Carpets pulled out of participation after recruiting only 30 people, whom it regarded as not suitable. Marks and Spencer took on only a third of the number that it had hoped for. Dixons sent a member of staff to train 200 personal advisers, but has so far recruited only 12 people through the new deal.
  There is one great success for new deal recruitment. The most that any business has been able to find is 80 trainees, but the Employment Service has managed to find 289 specifically to administer the new deal. I submit that those are the only 289 positions that can be ascribed to it.
  Young people are disillusioned. Last month, the Evening Standard quoted a new deal participant from Hackney, who said:
  "They knew next to nothing about my field—they'd advise me what companies I should try by looking through the Yellow Pages …In the end I found a job myself and the company that took me on did so without having anything to do with the New Deal."
  Ms Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Green: I am, as ever, tempted by the hon. Lady, but, with only two minutes left, I must reject her on this occasion.
  There is also the question of the cost per job. I calculate that it is £11,000; the Government claim that it is £1,000. The Minister and I can argue about that, so I shall turn to prose more elegant than that in my pamphlet, "The Four Failures of the New Deal", which is available from the Centre for Policy Studies. Matthew Parris makes the point better than I did. He made inquiries after I asked the Secretary of State about this and found that the £1,000 price tag
  "represents the cost of helping the successful job-finder into the job—but takes no account of what is spent on those who did not get jobs."
  In other words, it is much more expensive, and others have made the same calculation.
  Hon. Members have asked what we would do instead. We would have a less crude, more targeted programme aimed at areas of chronic high unemployment, particular groups in society and disadvantaged individuals. That would not only be a more intelligent, but a more compassionate way to spend public money. We do not measure our compassion by how much taxpayers' money we can waste on useless schemes.
  The Minister will no doubt assume that he will be re-elected; I assume that he will not be. If he is able to, will he continue the new deal beyond 2002? If the answer is yes, how will he find the next £5 billion? The Government have not told us that yet.
  The new deal is a perfect symbol of new Labour. It is overhyped, overpriced, overrated and it is underperforming. It is failing young people, failing business and failing the taxpayer. I urge hon. Members to vote in favour of this motion this evening to register a much-needed protest.
  6.50 pm
  The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) chided us on who had spoken about what. I found it highly significant that

  581
  it was not until he stood up to speak that any of his hon. Friends offered any criticism of the new deal. They are obviously no more convinced by the statistics that he has paraded all day than we are. The truth of the matter could hardly be better summarised than by what has happened to long-term youth unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency in the past two years. It has fallen by 78 per cent.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) could not tell us whether he would abolish the minimum wage and whether he agreed with the shadow Chancellor that the Conservatives would put it on hold. He could not say whether they would abandon the new deal or whether they would end the operational independence of the Bank of England. He, too, omitted to mention the fall in long-term youth unemployment in his constituency in the past two years. He is not doing quite so well as the hon. Member for Ashford, but the long-term youth unemployment in his constituency fell by 59 per cent.
  I welcome the supportive remarks made by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) on what we are doing to tackle the skills and research challenge that Britain faces as a consequence of the Conservative years. I welcome, too, his measured remarks and his support for the new deal. I hope that he will not mind my chiding him by saying that I would have welcomed his support for the windfall tax, which paid for the new deal.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) congratulated us on four counts on the new deal. I congratulate him on the role that he played in government in introducing the programme. As he said, it is challenging the culture of long-term unemployment. It represents a decisive shift to a proactive welfare state. It is a more effective and humane way of countering claimant fraud, and it is unleashing real enterprise and initiative among staff and other partners who are implementing the programme.
  I shall certainly consider each of my right hon. Friend's suggestions seriously. We are already acting on the points that he mentioned. Rather than thinking of the new deal as a mark 1 or mark 2 of welfare reform, we see it as developing and improving all the time. My right hon. Friend argued that people who came back on to the programme within a year should go straight back on an option. I assure him that we are already considering the most appropriate form of follow-through support to ensure that those who really have tried to find work but have not done so receive the continuity of support that they need. We shall ensure that those who are trying to work the system do not get the sympathy from us for doing so that they got from the Conservative party when it was in government.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead referred to shortening the gateway. Of course, we are already intensifying the gateway, not least with the £3.5 million announced in the Budget to provide more intensive support. That brings to £5 million the amount of money made available locally for innovation to improve the rate at which young people move through the gateway and into jobs.
  My right hon. Friend argued for delegated budgets for local offices and referred explicitly to driving licences. I am pleased to assure him that I issued instructions this
  582
  week for a much more permissive rule to be operated to allow more young people to get a driving licence through the new deal, where that can get them into a job.
  Mr. Bercow: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the head of the Government's own skills task force, Chris Humphries, said in a recent letter to the Evening Standard—[Interruption.]—This might be uncomfortable for the right hon. Gentleman, but that is tough. Chris Humphries said:
  "Expectations that the Government raised are not being met."
  Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that that individual made that statement in a newspaper?
  Mr. Smith: I have never seen that comment in my life. However, the promises that we made before the general election are promises that are being kept. Our promises are being kept on jobs, on welfare reform and on building a strong and competitive economic base in place of the boom-and-bust failures that we saw during the years of Conservative government.
  The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) spoke with great passion about the situation facing road hauliers. He asked that figures on the competitiveness of the industry be placed in the Library. I shall do what I can to ensure that that is done. He asked about the future programme for the forum. I understand that a further meeting will be held next month, at which I am sure the issues that he raised will be discussed. I shall ensure that a copy of Hansard is drawn to the attention of the forum.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) summed up the matter when he said that the new deal was the most ambitious, concentrated and structured programme of help that has ever been available to young unemployed people in this country. With the figures announced today, we now have more than 61,000 young people in sustained jobs through the new deal and more than 58,000 young people taking up other training and work experience options—about 120,000 young people helped forward in their lives, thanks to the new deal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) said, the new deal is a quality programme which is making a real difference in the quality of the lives of young people who have been neglected and ignored.
  The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) spoke of the situation in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to reassure him that, a week ago, I met community and voluntary sector representatives from Northern Ireland to address the concerns that he raised. I welcome the support that he gave for today's announcement of extra funding help for the transition in Northern Ireland. We all know that Northern Ireland has been blighted for a long time by some of the worst unemployment in the country, and that has undoubtedly aggravated the sectarian conflict there. If the new deal and the Government's support for a strong economy and a competitive industry can help to play their part in resolving those sectarian differences and sustaining peace, that will be welcomed by the whole House.
  We have heard no alternatives to the Government's policies from the official Opposition, but plenty of evidence that the Opposition's credibility is at rock bottom. As my hon. Friends have told us from their experiences in their constituencies, Labour's policies are working, and more of our constituents are working.

  583
  That has happened because we have kept our promises—governing, as we promised, to equip Britain for a new world economy. The sound monetary framework that we have established, the tough decisions that we took on public finances, our cuts in corporation tax, our reforms to make work pay, the new deals, the raising of education standards and the investment in skills and science are all putting in place strong foundations for an enterprising and competitive economy, in which flexibility is combined with fairness.
  Desperate though the Opposition are to find bad news, the truth is that we have more people in work than ever before. Since the general election, the ILO measure of unemployment has been down in every region. The claimant count has been down in every region since the general selection. Long-term unemployment is down in every region. Long-term youth unemployment is down in every region; we achieved lower long-term youth unemployment in 18 months than the Conservatives could manage in 18 years. Under the Tories, Britain had a post-war record for the number of people out of work; under Labour, there is an all-time record—
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 287.

  Division No. 159]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Faber, David

  Amess, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Baldry, Tony

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Bercow, John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Blunt, Crispin

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Gibb, Nick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brady, Graham

  Gray, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Green, Damian

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Grieve, Dominic

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Burns, Simon

  Hammond, Philip

  Butterfill, John

  Hayes, John

  Cash, William

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Chope, Christopher

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Clappison, James

  Horam, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Jenkin, Bemard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Key, Robert

  Cran, James

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  &Howden)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lansley, Andrew

  Duncan, Alan

  Leigh, Edward

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Letwin, Oliver

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  584

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Loughton, Tim

  Spring, Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Swayne, Desmond

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Syms, Robert

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Madel, Sir David

  Trend, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Viggers, Peter

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Walter, Robert

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Wardle, Charles

  Moss, Malcolm

  Waterson, Nigel

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Norman, Archie

  Whittingdale, John

  Paice, James

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Paterson, Owen

  Wilkinson, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Willetts, David

  Prior, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Randall, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Woodward, Shaun

  Robathan, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Ruffley, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shepherd, Richard

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Mr. Tim Collins.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Ainsworth, Robert(Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clelland, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Coaker, Vernon

  Ashton, Joe

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cohen, Harry

  Austin, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Barnes, Harry

  Colman, Tony

  Battle, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cooper, Yvette

  Beard, Nigel

  Corbett, Robin

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cotter, Brian

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cousins, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Cranston, Ross

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Crausby, David

  Betts, Clive

  Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

  Blackman, Liz

  Cummings, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cunningham, Jim(Cov'try S)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Boateng, Paul

  Dalyell, Tam

  Borrow, David

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

  Darvill, Keith

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Davidson, Ian

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(Llanelli)

  Burgon, Colin

  Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

  Burnett, John

  Dawson, Hilton

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Denham, John

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Dismore, Andrew

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Dobbin, Jim

  Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

  Doran, Frank

  Cann, Jamie

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Caplin, Ivor

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Casale, Roger

  Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

  Caton, Martin

  Efford, Clive

  Cawsey, Ian

  Ennis, Jeff

  Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Chaytor, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Clapham, Michael

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Follett, Barbara

  585

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McDonnell, John

  Galloway, George

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gapes, Mike

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gardiner, Barry

  Mackinaly, Andrew

  Gerrard, Neil

  McNulty, Tony

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McWalter, Tony

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Goggins, Paul

  Mallabar, Judy

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Grogan, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Maxton, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Meale, Alan

  Healey, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Heppell, John

  Morgon, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Morley, Elliot

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hill, Keith

  Mountford, Kali

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mudie, George

  Hoey, Kate

  Mullin, Chris

  Hood, Jimmy

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hope, Phil

  O'Brien, Mike, (N Warks)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pearson, Ian

  Hutton, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Purchase, Ken

  Keetch, Paul

  Radice, Giles

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Rammell, Bill

  Kemp, Fraser

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Reed Andrew (Loughborough)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kidney, David

  Rendel,David

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Robinson, Geoffrey(Cov'try NW)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ross, Ernie(Dundee W

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Rowlands, Ted

  Laxton, Bob

  Roy, Frank

  Lepper, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leslie, Christopher

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Levitt, Tom

  Salter, Martin

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Sawford, Phil

  Linton, Martin

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Livingstone, Ken

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lock, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  (Makerfield)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  586

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Timms, Stephen

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Soley, Clive

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Spellar, John

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Vaz, Keith

  Stevenson, George

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stott, Roger

  Williams, Alan W(E Carmarthen)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Willis, Phil

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wills, Michael

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Winnick, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wise, Audrey

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Wood, Mike

  (Dewsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 123.

  Division No. 160]

  [7.13 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clelland, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coaker, Vernon

  Austin, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Barnes, Harry

  Cohen, Harry

  Battle, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Bayley, Hugh

  Colman, Tony

  Beard, Nigel

  Connarty, Michael

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Corbett, Robin

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Benton, Joe

  Cousins, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cranston, Ross

  Betts, Clive

  Crausby, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Boateng, Paul

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Borrow, David

  Darvill, Keith

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Davidson, Ian

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Burgon, Colin

  Dawson, Hilton

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Denham, John

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Dismore, Andrew

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Cann, Jamie

  Doran, Frank

  Caplin, Ivor

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Casale, Roger

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Caton, Martin

  Efford, Clive

  Cawsey, Ian

  Ennis, Jeff

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Chaytor, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  587

  Follett, Barbara

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McWalter, Tony

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Galloway, George

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Gapes, Mike

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Martlew, Eric

  Godsiff, Roger

  Maxton, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Meale, Alan

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Grocott, Bruce

  Miller, Andrew

  Grogan, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Morley, Elliot

  Healey, John

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mountford, Kali

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mudie, George

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mullin, Chris

  Heppell, John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hesford, Stephen

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hill, Keith

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoey, Kate

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hope, Phil

  Pearson, Ian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Pendry, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Plaskitt, James

  Hutton, John

  Pollard, Kerry

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Pound, Stephen

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Rammell, Bill

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kemp, Fraser

  Rooker, Jeff

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kidney, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Roy, Frank

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Salter, Martin

  Laxton, Bob

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Lepper, David

  Sawford, Phil

  Leslie, Christopher

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Levitt, Tom

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Linton, Martin

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Livingstone, Ken

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lock, David

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  (Makerfield)

  Soley, Clive

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Spellar, John

  McDonnell, John

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  McIsaac, Shona

  Stevenson, George

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Stott, Roger

  McNulty, Tony

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  588

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Vaz, Keith

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Willis, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winnick, David

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wise, Audrey

  Timms, Stephen

  Wood, Mike

  Tipping, Paddy

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Eyatt, Derek

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Horam, John

  Amess, David

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Keetch, Paul

  Baldry, Tony

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Bercow, John

  Key, Robert

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgewater)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Boswell, Tim

  Kirkwook, Archy

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brady, Graham

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  Leigh, Edward

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Burnett, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Burns, Simon

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Butterfill, John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cash, William

  Mackay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Clappison, James

  Mc Loughlin, Patrick

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan(Kensington)

  Madell, Sir David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cotter, Brian

  Moss, Malcolm,

  Cran, James

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Davies, Quentin(Grantham)

  Norman, Archie

  Davies, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

  Paice, James

  & Howden)

  Paterson, Owen

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Pickles, Eric

  Duncan, Alan

  Prior, David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Randall, John

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Faber, David

  Rendel, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Roe, Mrs Marion(Broxbourne)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Ruffley, David

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Shepherd, Richard

  Fraser, Christopher

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gale, Roger

  Spicer, sir Michael

  Garnier, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Steen, Anthony

  Gill, Christopher

  Stunell, Andrew

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gray, James

  Syms, Robert

  Green, Damian

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Grieve, Dominic

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Trend, Michael

  Hammond, Philip

  Viggers, Peter

  Hayes, John

  Walter, Robert

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Wardle, Charles

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  589

  Whittingdale, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wilkinson, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Woodward, Shaun

  Mr. Tim Collins.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the actions of the Government to reverse the industrial decline and the destruction of jobs, not least for young people. that characterised the situation while the Opposition formed the Government; welcomes the creation of over 400,000 jobs since the last election; notes the contrast between this situation and that of the Tory slow-down of 1989 to 1993 when over a million manufacturing jobs were lost; welcomes the achievements of the New Deal and its contribution to the 35 per cent fall since January 1998 in the number of young people unemployed for six months or more; believes that the sound economic policies of this Government are a better way to support industrial success and job creation than the interest rates at 15 per cent, budget deficits soaring, high long-term interest rates and boom and bust economics that were the previous Government's policy; and welcomes the strategy set out in the Competitiveness White Paper for encouraging enterprise, investment and innovation as the right way forward for Britain.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
    That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 13th April, be approved.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
    Question agreed to.

    VALUE ADDED TAX
    Ordered,
    That the Value Added Tax (Amendment) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

  Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act. — [Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  7.25 pm
  Mr. David Maclean: I feel that, in the case of all Bills, when a money motion has been tabled, the Minister should say a few words about the financial effects, and should tell the House whether the Government anticipate any changes since the publication of the explanatory notes. I do not intend to delay the House for long, but I feel that we should be told about the financial consequences of Bills, even Bills that have received cross-party support as this Bill has.
  I note that, according to the Government's estimate, the total additional administrative expenditure will amount to £100,000 per annum. I believe that that is to pay for the extra civil servants who will be required to administer international football banning orders — [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I must call the House to order. This item of business is as worthy of consideration as any other.
  Mr. Maclean: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Government also calculate that the requirement to report to police stations, and the requirement for the submission of passports, will result in some additional costs, but they say in their explanatory notes that they expect those costs to be minimal. I go along with their forecast, but it would be helpful to hear how much the Government expect the figure to be, if they have a figure in mind. What is "minimal"? Is it less than £10,000, or less than £50,000?
  I would also like to know the effects of the banning orders. There will be slight additional costs for the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts. Again, the Government say that the costs are likely to be minimal, but it would be helpful to know whether "minimal" means less than £100,000, less than £50,000 or less than £10,000. Of course I do not expect to be given a precise figure; it would be unreasonable to ask for one.
  I apologise to the Minister and to my hon. Friends if I am wrong about this, but I seem to remember that, when we debated the Bill, a number of Members on both sides of the House spoke of the importance of locking up more of these hooligans. They said that the Bill would catch some people who are not being caught now, and the House was in quite a gung-ho mood about the number of people who would be locked up. Perhaps that was extreme, or optimistic, language; perhaps only some, or indeed none, of those people will actually be locked up. What I need to know from the Minister is this: is it possible that more people will be imprisoned as a result of the Bill? If so, we shall face different costs.

  591
  I have no objection to putting more people in prison. I espoused that policy, quite strongly, when I was a Minister. Indeed, I am pleased to say that I helped to contribute to the increased number of people in prison. There has been a record fall in crime —a record since the war—and I am proud that that is continuing. However, if a few more vicious hooligans are put in prison, we shall face greatly increased costs. I know that prison costs are often exaggerated, but it could mean £50,000 per criminal, or a minimum of £30,000 in the case of lower-category offenders.
  If the Government have more detailed figures, we would like clarification of the financial effects of the Bill as set out in the explanatory notes. We also want to know whether the Government expect to incur extra imprisonment costs, tagging costs or any other costs relating to the sentencing and storage of the additional number of criminals who may be convicted.
  7.29 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has rightly raised some points about the Bill, which I hope can be dealt with quickly. The Bill originated as a private Member's Bill tabled by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), a member of the right hon. Gentleman's party. It has had its Second Reading, when it received broad support from both sides of the House, and we hope that it will go into Committee next Wednesday. It cannot go further unless this money motion is passed, and I hope that hon. Members will support it.
  The Bill is intended to deal more effectively with the threat of disorder from those convicted of football-related offences. Banning orders are issued on the instruction of the court following application by the prosecutor on behalf of the police. Additional costs are involved, but they will be absorbed in the criminal justice system. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the Prison Service always manages to accommodate extra costs arising from the decisions of the court.
  592
  It is worth pointing out that any increased costs incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service would be as a result of preparing a greater number of applications. Those costs are expected to be minimal. We shall go into more detail on what minimal means. As a former Home Office Minister, the right hon. Gentleman should know what minimal means in the overall civil service jargon.
  It is anticipated that the restrictions order authority will require an additional four full-time members and one part-time member of staff to deal with the administrative work. The authority's expenses will be met by the Secretary of State under section 21(8) of the Football Spectators Act 1989. The additional administrative costs are anticipated to be approximately £100,000 per annum.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Minister give way?
  Kate Hoey: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I am well aware that if I do not, he will probably make a speech. I know that we have 45 minutes, but I think that hon. Members on both sides probably do not want this debate to take 45 minutes.
  Mr. Leigh: The promoter of the Bill told the House on Second Reading that he intended to table a provision at a later stage to allow the Government to order the surrender of passports of those as yet not convicted of an offence. Does the Minister think that any extra costs could arise as a result of that provision if it were included in the Bill? What will she do about a money resolution when that provision is introduced?
  Kate Hoey: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, that has not yet been finally decided, but a decision will be made before next Wednesday. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford will make that decision. If that provision were to be included in the Bill, some additional costs would be involved. At the moment it is not in the Bill, so it is not affected by this money motion.
  I hope that my explanation is satisfactory, and that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border is satisfied. This measure will be given full consideration in Committee, and I ask hon. Members to support it tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Vaux Brewery
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Chris Mullin: This is an unhappy tale: a parable for the fate that has overtaken so much of our manufacturing industry during the past 30 years. It is about a clash of cultures. On the one hand is a long-established, respected company managed by successive generations of the same family, who take the old-fashioned view that their responsibilities extend to their work force and to the public interest as well as to their shareholders. On the other hand are the City institutions, which acknowledge only an obligation to make for themselves and their clients the fastest buck in the shortest possible time, regardless of other considerations.
  The struggle at Vaux brewery has been a long one. It was a boardroom battle worthy of a television soap, during which the company has lost its chief executive, its finance director and, eventually, its long-serving chairman. The ending is an unhappy one, because the barbarians have triumphed.
  My main purpose tonight is not to influence events—it is probably too late for that. Instead, I intend to place on record a summary of the facts, and to draw attention to a number of issues that arise from what has happened at Vaux, on which I invite the Government to comment. Before doing so, I must pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), in whose constituency the brewery is based. He is unavoidably detained elsewhere. However, I welcome a number of my hon. Friends from the region.
  Vaux is one of north-east England's oldest and most respected companies. The brewery employs about 600 people in Sunderland, many of whom are my constituents, and more than 100 in Sheffield. Some years ago, the company successfully diversified into hotels. Before long, its Swallow hotel chain became the mainstay of the group. It is one of the few major companies whose head office remains in the north-east, although for how long remains to be seen.
  Vaux has a loyal work force and, at the brewery, a management who are on first-name terms with most of their employees. Industrial relations are good; profits steady, if not spectacular; dividends have increased in each of the 27 years in which Sir Paul Nicholson was chairman. Today, earnings and dividends are more than 10 times higher than they were when Sir Paul took over, in 1971. So let no one say that it is a failing company. As Britain's brewing industry increasingly came under the sway of four big companies, however, Vaux came under pressure from the City to get out of brewing and concentrate instead on hotels.
  In June 1998, soon after his 60th birthday, Sir Paul Nicholson stepped down as chief executive, although he stayed on as chairman. A new chief executive, Martin Grant, formally of Allied Domecq, was chosen to replace him. I have met Mr. Grant. He has done enormous damage, but he is charming and plausible, and it is always disappointing that one's demons do not conform to the stereotype.
  594
  From the outset, the signs were ominous. Mr. Grant made it clear that he would not be moving to the north-east, despite the fact that Swallow's headquarters is based there. Within a short time of taking over, he advised the company that it should get out of brewing. The board reluctantly agreed. It did, however, express a preference for the company's brewing interests to be sold as a going concern.
  At that point, a ray of hope appeared. A management team, led by Frank Nicholson—the joint managing director, and brother of Sir Paul—made a bid for the breweries and certain of the pubs owned by Vaux. Sir Paul very properly took a back seat, in order not to be seen to favour his brother's interests. The management buy-out should have been the solution that satisfied everyone.
  Initially, the main fear in Sunderland was that the management would be outbid by one of the four breweries, closed and asset stripped. However, on 20 November 1998—the deadline—we found to our pleasant surprise that none of the big four had made a bid for the entire company, which appeared to leave the field clear for the management buy-out. We had reckoned, however, without Mr. Grant. It soon became clear that Mr. Grant was determined to resist the management buy-out and opt instead for a scorched-earth policy.
  In January, Mr. Grant submitted a paper to the board arguing that Vaux was worth £24 million more closed down and asset-stripped than were it to be sold as a going concern. His figures were clearly preposterous, and his advice was rejected. On 15 January, the board opted instead to open negotiations with Frank Nicholson and his management team.
  Mr. Grant, however, did not accept defeat. He and the finance director, Mr. Neal Gossage, went behind the backs of the board and bad-mouthed the proposed management buy-out to City institutions with major holdings in Vaux. On 8 February, they were summoned by the board and sacked; but the damage was done.
  Following the departure of Messrs Grant and Gossage, a spate of hostile stories began to appear in City pages. In March, the advisers appointed by the company reported back to the board, and it became clear that they were split. One of them was prepared to recommend the management buy-out, but the other declined to, arguing that an extra £15 million—3 or 4 per cent. of the group's market value—could be squeezed out of the assets if they were sold off piecemeal.
  I should say that this figure is extremely controversial, and varies according to who one talks to. Specifically, it appears to be based on generous assumptions about the value of the site and the costs of clearing it. Sir Paul Nicholson believes the gap to be nearer £2 million or £3 million. The board, however, by a majority rejected the management bid, and has since rejected a revised offer. Scorched earth is now the most likely outcome.
  On 27 March, Sir Paul resigned in disgust. He said:
  "There can hardly be any parallel where a plant closure has occurred when the board had a reasonable offer from the management."
  Goodness knows, we in Sunderland have seen our share of redundancies in recent years, and redundancy is always painful. But what makes Vaux different from just about all the others in my experience is that it is not a loss-making company. The market for its product had not

  595
  dried up; on the contrary—I cannot stress this too strongly—it is still a profitable company, for which a reasonable offer was on the table.
  What has happened is wilful vandalism. More than 700 people are about to lose their jobs, and a respected trade name is about to disappear, in the hope—that is all that it is —of adding a few pence to the share price on the basis of some extremely controversial assumptions about the likely value of the assets once everything has been dismantled.
  Before we start blaming the shareholders, let me explain that there are many Swallow shareholders in Sunderland and elsewhere who are as disgusted as everyone else with what is being done in their names. The problem is that they are outnumbered by the huge block votes wielded by a handful of City institutions, one or two of which, I am sorry to say, control the pension funds of employees, who, if only they had a say, would not approve of what is being done in their name. For the record, I shall name those primarily responsible for this debacle. They are Mercury Asset Management, the Bankers' Trust and Hermes Pensions Management Ltd.—formerly the Post Office pension fund.
  As I said at the outset, my principal purpose tonight is to place on record those unfortunate events, which provide a classic example of the unacceptable face of capitalism. A viable company that has traded successfully for 150 years, and for which a realistic offer is on the table, is about to be destroyed by a handful of irresponsible City institutions. Of course, muggings—the taxpayer—will be responsible for the bill for clearing up the mess that will be left behind.
  I pay tribute to Frank Nicholson for the heroic efforts that he and his colleagues have made to save the business. Rarely have I come across a business man so highly regarded by those who work for him. I pay tribute too, to Sir Paul Nicholson. As group chairman and brother of Frank, he has obviously been restricted in what he could say and do, but he has left no one in any doubt publicly or privately about where he stands.
  I also thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has taken a close interest in the matter from the outset. It is a measure of the seriousness with which he takes the issue that he has chosen to reply in person to tonight's debate.
  The Government have done all that could reasonably have been expected to save Vaux. From the outset, they have made it clear that a generous offer of regional selective assistance was available to help the management buy-out succeed. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend would confirm tonight that the offer is still on the table, in the unlikely event of any new buyer coming forward.
  I finish by drawing my right hon. Friend's attention to several wider issues that arise from the affair. First, it has become clear that all the major brewers are in the habit of subsidising the price of their beers to the general market by charging their own estate —that is, the pubs that they own—a premium price. It is perfectly possible, therefore, that the big four might be in a position to put small breweries such as Vaux out of business using what is surely an unfair trading practice. That is a matter in
  596
  which the Office of Fair Trading may wish to take an interest. I drew it to the attention of the director general some months ago.
  Secondly, it is a matter of record that the irresponsible obsession of City institutions with making the fastest buck in the shortest possible time has infected British business with a culture of short-termism, which has proved deeply damaging to our manufacturing sector. What plans does the Secretary of State, no doubt in consultation with the Chancellor, have for addressing the culture of short-termism in the City?
  Thirdly, it is also a matter of record that pension funds do not always operate in a manner of which their members would necessarily approve, or in those members' best interests. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that pension funds are sufficiently accountable to their members?
  Fourthly, I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend would say something about the assistance available from the Government to help to retrain and re-employ the people who will lose their jobs.
  I address my final remarks to the board of Vaux—the Swallow Group, as it is now called. Its members will be aware that what has happened to Vaux has caused outrage in Sunderland, not least among many small shareholders. They will also be aware that the calculations on which they have based their decision to close the brewery have been challenged, not least by Sir Paul Nicholson, who was company chairman for 27 years. I put it to them that, at the very least, they owe their employees and the people of Sunderland a detailed explanation. That could best be done by calling an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders, and I invite them to do so.
  Mr. Derek Foster rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. Gentleman was not here at the start of the debate.
  7.44 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on securing this debate. It is appropriate to bring this matter to the attention of the House this evening. The closure of a firm with more than 150 years of history and the prospect of some 600 job losses merits consideration on the Floor of the House.
  First and perhaps most importantly, I want to emphasise that my deepest sympathies lie with those employees at the Vaux brewery, and at the Ward brewery in Sheffield, who stand to lose their jobs. Their interests have been and remain the main focus of our concern as a Government. It is a good reflection of the concern felt in the House that several right hon. and hon. Members are present to listen to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster)—a Sunderland lad, if I may say so—has taken a great personal interest in the matter. As a Salvationist, he has some difficulty defending the employment of people working in the brewing industry, but he represents the interests of many people in the Sunderland area so I hope that he will be forgiven in the appropriate quarter.
  I also welcome my hon. Friends the Members for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) and

  597
  for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor). Between us, we have probably contributed significantly to the profits of Vaux breweries over the years, although I certainly cannot say the same about my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland. However, it is not the quality of the beer that brings my hon. Friends to the Chamber this evening, but their concern about the future of brewing in Sunderland and, in particular, of the Vaux brewery.
  I also welcome to the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), who is present because of the implications for Sheffield and the Ward brewery. I shall address the issues specifically related to the Vaux brewery, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. In doing so, I do not wish to diminish the difficulties faced by those individuals linked with the Ward brewery. Many of the issues that I shall raise about the Vaux brewery apply also to the Ward brewery.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South said, many people in the north-east regret the decisions that have been taken. The history and the sequence of the events were clearly explained by my hon. Friend. As he said, I have been fully aware of the seriousness of the situation and have taken a personal interest in the developments. The Department of Trade and Industry was approached at the outset by the management team bidding to buy the breweries. At that time, it was confident that a deal could be done that would save the breweries and the jobs of those who work for them. When it first emerged that financial assistance would be required to secure the future of the breweries, the Government office for the north east quickly responded and made an initial offer of support through regional selective assistance of £1 million.
  It subsequently emerged that a significantly larger sum would be needed to try to secure a positive decision to maintain the breweries in Sunderland and in Sheffield. We were prepared to increase the offer of regional selective assistance by an additional £5 million, so that a total of £6 million would be available to a new purchaser of the breweries to secure future employment opportunities. Unfortunately, a mutually acceptable basis for agreement between the Swallow Group and the management buy-out team could not be found. I am deeply saddened that it should have come to that, especially for the employees affected, their families and the wider communities in Sheffield and Sunderland. We have to assume that the Swallow Group considered that alternative courses of action represented the best interests of the shareholders, but many people will share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South about the real motives behind the decision that the Swallow Group has taken.
  Mr. Derek Foster: I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate, but I was hosting a reception downstairs for 300 people from my old college in Oxford, for which I left Sunderland in 1957.
  I congratulate the Government on their speedy and excellent action. They cannot be faulted at all, as they have done everything that has been required. However, as a very small shareholder in the firm, I do not accept that the board has acted in the shareholders' interest. Indeed, it has never put any information before the small shareholders, even though they own at least 15 per cent. of the shares—very nearly the largest tranche of the shares in the company.
  598
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will call in the board, and suggest to its members that they have a moral duty to the city of Sunderland—and to the Government, who may have to pick up the bill—to put the facts before the small shareholders so that they can be independently assessed.
  Mr. Byers: I shall deal specifically with the relationship between shareholders and the company in a few minutes, and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could wait until I reach that part of my contribution. I think that that will be a more helpful way in which to tackle his very genuine concern.
  Although we accept that it may be difficult in the days and weeks ahead to find a new buyer for one or both of the breweries, we have not given up hope. Someone who sees the excellent facilities at the both the Vaux and the Ward breweries may well decide that buying and maintaining the breweries would represent a viable commercial opportunity.
  The Government's position is very clear. If new options emerge for preserving employment at the breweries, we stand ready to provide assistance. I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South that the £6 million that we offered a few weeks ago in an attempt to secure the future of the Vaux brewery in Sunderland remains on the table. I hope that someone will come forward, in the days and weeks ahead, and use the £6 million that the Government are prepared to offer to secure the employment of the 600 or more people who presently work at the Vaux brewery.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South raised a number of specific issues that I shall address head on this evening. First, he mentioned the possibility of anti-competitive behaviour in the beer market, and suggested that the four big brewers may be acting and exerting influence in a way that would distort that market. My hon. Friend would be absolutely right to draw that possibility to the attention of the Director General of Fair Trading. It is exactly the sort of conduct that would be appropriate for him to investigate.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South will be aware that it is for the director general to consider the comments that have been made, and to decide whether an investigation should be carried out. However, I am confident that the director general will look carefully at what has been said in this debate, and at any further information that may be passed to him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South also raised the issue of action by certain large City institutions. The Government are very much aware of how such institutions can operate, and of those institutions' powerful position in relation to matters such as this.
  We are considering ways in which to make the market for investment work more effectively as part of our wider agenda of increasing growth and jobs in the UK by improving productivity. We want City institutions to recognise that a short-term approach is often neither in the interests of individual companies that might be affected at the time nor in the long-term interests of City institutions themselves or the wider UK economy.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland mentioned the position of small shareholders and the possibility that the views of a minority of shareholders

  599
  may be ignored by those who command block votes. The 1998 pre-Budget report introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer discussed ways in which to bring greater transparency, responsibility and accountability to the relationship between institutional investors and the fund managers they employ. That work is being progressed right now. There are real issues about the interests and rights of small shareholders.
  There are no easy or quick answers in this area. However, I can assure the House that I will talk personally to investors and fund managers about the points raised in the pre-Budget report and in the debate tonight about productivity and corporate governance.
  Mr. Alan Campbell: On short-termism and regional assistance, I know that my right hon. Friend shares my concern about today's decision by Siemens to invest in a plant in France rather than on north Tyneside. Quite apart from the fact that the French factory will not be making the same product as the north Tyneside one, that suggests an appalling lack of commitment by Siemens to finding a secure future for the plant and for the work force.
  Regional assistance is given to companies, and I welcome the decision to reclaim £18 million from Siemens. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that if regional assistance is given—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is about Vaux breweries, not regional assistance in the north-east.
  Mr. Byers: I note your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but may I say that we are offering regional selective assistance in relation to Vaux breweries? One reason why we are able to do so from our own budget, at £6 million, is that we will, with great vigour, reclaim £18 million provided to Siemens. Siemens has failed to meet employment conditions attached to regional selective assistance and will be required to repay the money. I can give my hon. Friends that assurance. We will also look carefully into the circumstances surrounding the Siemens decision.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South mentioned the support that might be given to individuals who may, after all our efforts, lose their jobs as a result of any decision to close the brewery. The company announced last week that redundancies would take place. Meetings have occurred between the company, the local training and enterprise council, the Employment Service and the local authority. I commend the work of Sunderland city council in endeavouring to secure the future of the Vaux brewery.
  The Government office for the north east stands ready to handle sympathetically requests for assistance that emerge from those discussions. The Government have put
  600
  in place special rapid response measures which can be deployed when there are redundancies on this scale. They have been highly successful in previous cases, such as those of Fujitsu and Siemens. We will do all we can to help the people affected to find new employment and will put rapid response measures in place.
  Sunderland as well as Sheffield will take the heaviest blow as a result of the decision to close the brewery. We understand the difficulties that the city, its surrounding areas and, indeed, the community face. But in Sunderland there has been some good news as well as bad news recently. My hon. Friend referred to the devastating impact in Sunderland of the decline in the shipbuilding industry, but Sunderland has been reborn since the closure of that very important industry. New jobs have been found and Sunderland is still a good place to do business. We have seen with Nissan, the most productive car plant in Europe, the potential that exists in the north-east of England. Nissan is currently recruiting to build its third model in Sunderland, with 800 new jobs being created as a result. That is good news for Sunderland and is a positive endorsement of the benefits of locating there.
  In other areas of manufacturing, there has been good news as well, from the manufacture of pumps and plastics to ships' cranes by Liebherr. The service sector is also set to create several hundred jobs. This is all good news, as is the fact that the Government and the European Union will continue to provide funds to promote economic regeneration.
  The current north-east of England objective 2 programme contains packages of projects targeted directly at the Sunderland area which, if all taken up, could utilise over £32 million in grants from the European regional development fund and the European social fund. That is £32 million that will be used specifically for the purposes of economic regeneration and job creation.
  I have no doubt that if the Vaux brewery in Sunderland is ultimately closed, it will be a major blow. No one can ignore that fact. But it is also clear that the north-east has many strengths. One of them is resilience in the face of hostility and adversity. There is a good news story to tell about the north-east. For some of us, it is a community that we joined and have been welcomed into. For many people, it is where they have spent their whole life. There are many strengths in the north-east. It is those strengths that will be called on in difficult times as well as in good times.
  My Department stands ready to help the communities affected. We will not stand to one side and see communities being devastated—
  The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at three minutes past Eight o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Historic Military Equipment
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he issued a heritage export licence for a Panzer iv/70 (V) main battle tank during 1998. [82194]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information given on applications for heritage export licences is commercially sensitive and is given in confidence. The Government cannot, therefore, reveal details about objects which are the subject of applications. We are advised that it would also be an unwarranted invasion of privacy contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what(a) regulations and (b) guidelines he has issued relating to the export of military equipment which is over 50 years old. [82172]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  An individual export licence is required on heritage grounds from my Department for firearms between 50 and 100 years old if valued at or above £39,600. All other arms and armour over 50 years of age and firearms more than 100 years old require an individual export licence on heritage grounds if valued at or above £20,000. In addition, the export of any goods covered by Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the so called military list, requires an export licence from the Department of Trade and Industry regardless of monetary value or age.

  The booklet, "Export Licensing for Culture Goods: Procedures and Guidance for Exporters of Works of Art and other Cultural Goods", which is issued by my Department, sets out the export licensing requirements on heritage grounds.

  Advance Corporation Tax
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his assessment of the effect of recent changes to advance corporation tax on the tourism industry. [81803]

  Local authority

  Primary education SSA (£ million)

  Estimated number of resident pupils aged 5 to 10

  Primary education SSA per primary pupil (£/pupil)

  Secondary education SSA (£ million)

  Estimated number of resident pupils aged 11 to 15

  Secondary education SSA per secondary pupil (£/pupil)

  Bedfordshire

  67.54

  28,609

  2,361

  66.269

  22,014

  3,010

  Buckinghamshire

  79.231

  33,522

  2,364

  80.276

  27,230

  2,948

  Cambridgeshire

  85.221

  39,310

  2,168

  79.399

  28,051

  2,831

  Cheshire

  108.986

  48,612

  2,242

  114.218

  37,885

  3,015

  Cornwall

  81.285

  34,725

  2,341

  84.335

  28,504

  2,959

  Cumbria

  81.26

  35,574

  2,284

  84.398

  28,498

  2,962

  Derbyshire

  118.175

  53,463

  2,210

  116.069

  41,188

  2,818

  Devon

  105.727

  46,262

  2,285

  103.297

  36,721

  2,813

  Dorset

  56.094

  25,393

  2,209

  58.653

  20,032

  2,928

  Durham

  86.097

  37,952

  2,269

  88.105

  31,004

  2,842

  214
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 28 April 1999]: We have made no specific assessment of the effect on the tourism industry of the recent changes to advance corporation tax.

  The abolition of advance corporation tax from 6 April 1999, together with other recent changes in corporation tax, is aimed at stimulating greater high-quality long-term investment and will increase the attraction of the UK as a location for international companies. The removal of advance corporation tax, which gives all small to medium companies that pay dividends a significant cash-flow advantage, should benefit some of the many small firms which make up the tourism industry.

  As we outlined in our recent strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism", we are committed to creating the right economic climate for enterprise and investment for the whole of the UK economy as well as the tourism industry; these corporation tax changes contribute to our central economic objective of promoting economic stability as a platform for long-term sustainable growth.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for shire counties(a) the education service-block Standard Spending Assessment for each county, divided by the total number of full-time-equivalent pupils financed by that county, (b) the primary education service-sub-block Standard Spending Assessment for each county, divided by the number of primary pupils financed by that county and (c) the secondary education service-sub-block Standard Spending Assessment for each county, divided by the number of secondary pupils financed by that county. [82206]

  Ms Armstrong
  Data are not collected on the total number of full-time-equivalent pupils financed by a county.

  The calculations in the table for (b) and (c) have divided the Standard Spending Assessment by the estimated number of resident pupils (as defined in the Local Government Finance Report) for primary (aged 5 to 10) and secondary (aged 11 to 15) pupils respectively. Equivalent data for resident nursery (aged 3 to 4) pupils and resident pupils aged 16 and over do not exist; it is not therefore possible to provide data for (a).
  215

  Local authority

  Primary education SSA (£ million)

  Estimated number of resident pupils aged 5 to 10

  Primary education SSA per primary pupil (£/pupil)

  Secondary education SSA (£ million)

  Estimated number of resident pupils aged 11 to 15

  Secondary education SSA per secondary pupil (£/pupil)

  East Sussex

  76.252

  32,915

  2,317

  74.095

  25,458

  2,910

  Essex

  223.301

  93,370

  2,392

  227.552

  74,515

  3,054

  Gloucestershire

  89.208

  39,774

  2,243

  91.656

  31,445

  2,915

  Hampshire

  202.419

  89,880

  2,252

  194.709

  69,441

  2,804

  Hertfordshire

  183.98

  75,172

  2,447

  186.64

  56,413

  3,308

  Kent

  229.133

  96,297

  2,379

  231.163

  74,741

  3,093

  Lancashire

  203.387

  89,068

  2,284

  206.28

  69,524

  2,967

  Leicestershire

  95.562

  43,889

  2,177

  96.748

  35,418

  2,732

  Lincolnshire

  103.346

  44,221

  2,337

  109.077

  36,855

  2,960

  Norfolk

  120.664

  53,529

  2,254

  123.768

  41,909

  2,953

  North Yorkshire

  89.617

  39,644

  2,261

  96.293

  31,433

  3,063

  Northamptonshire

  110.605

  48,655

  2,273

  105.949

  36,187

  2,928

  Northumberland

  51.326

  21,876

  2,346

  55.515

  18,662

  2,975

  Nottinghamshire

  123.602

  55,343

  2,233

  130.741

  45,693

  2,861

  Oxfordshire

  94.498

  43,424

  2,176

  90.027

  30,617

  2,940

  Shropshire

  43.759

  19,372

  2,259

  45.589

  15,477

  2,946

  Somerset

  78.454

  35,036

  2,239

  75.464

  26,687

  2,828

  Staffordshire

  135.6

  61,207

  2,215

  140.157

  49,261

  2,845

  Suffolk

  107.072

  49,382

  2,168

  104.74

  36,188

  2,894

  Surrey

  155.874

  64,443

  2,419

  148.714

  46,471

  3,200

  Warwickshire

  80.391

  35,965

  2,235

  80.816

  27,841

  2,903

  West Sussex

  115.935

  50,600

  2,291

  115.298

  38,535

  2,992

  Wiltshire

  68.885

  30,630

  2,249

  66.067

  23,759

  2,781

  Worcestershire

  84.099

  38,313

  2,195

  84.456

  29,230

  2,889

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each shire county(a) the difference between the education department budget and that county's education service-block SSA in 1998–99 and (b) that sum, divided by the total number of full-time-equivalent pupils financed by that education department. [82171]

  Ms Armstrong
  Shire counties have reported budget education net revenue expenditure and their education SSA for 1998–99, as given in the table.

  Education expenditure and provision

  £000

  Shire county

  NRE (a)

  SSA (b)

  Difference (a-b)

  Bedfordshire

  154,077

  154,036

  41

  Buckinghamshire

  182,797

  183,782

  -985

  Cambridgeshire

  190,958

  180,211

  10,747

  Cheshire

  274,626

  250,889

  23,737

  Cornwall

  178,855

  179,351

  -496

  Cumbria

  196,334

  186,095

  10,239

  Derbyshire

  266,164

  257,615

  8,549

  Devon

  229,377

  228,712

  665

  Dorset

  139,140

  126,485

  12,655

  Durham

  205,287

  194,502

  10,785

  East Sussex

  165,774

  164,718

  1,056

  Essex

  501,848

  496,599

  5,249

  Gloucestershire

  199,057

  202,724

  -3,667

  Hampshire

  432,726

  423,339

  9,387

  Hertfordshire

  427,611

  424,210

  3,401

  Kent

  522,092

  525,604

  -3,512

  Lancashire

  464,394

  444,776

  19,618

  Leicestershire

  225,478

  215,261

  10,217

  Lincolnshire

  241,871

  236,174

  5,697

  Norfolk

  281,017

  270,064

  10,953

  North Yorkshire

  219,622

  206,729

  12,893

  Northamptonshire

  240,613

  243,723

  -3,110

  Northumberland

  122,689

  123,315

  -626

  Nottinghamshire

  298,863

  280,512

  18,351

  Oxfordshire

  201,628

  207,934

  -6,306

  Shropshire

  100,173

  95,364

  4,809

  216

  Education expenditure and provision

  £000

  Shire county

  NRE (a)

  SSA (b)

  Difference (a-b)

  Somerset

  175,236

  165,321

  9,915

  Staffordshire

  309,868

  305,803

  4,065

  Suffolk

  244,393

  237,019

  7,374

  Surrey

  335,735

  338,400

  -2,665

  Warwickshire

  188,986

  178,047

  10,939

  West Sussex

  266,085

  254,555

  11,530

  Wiltshire

  151,883

  149,445

  2,438

  Worcestershire

  187,820

  187,843

  -23

  Data are not collected on the total number of full-time-equivalent pupils financed by a county. Education Net Revenue Expenditure covers a wider range of activities than school expenditure, so it would not be appropriate to present this information on a per pupil basis.

  Street Lighting
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce competition into the market for street lighting connections; and what estimate he has made of the potential savings for local authorities from such competition. [82140]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply. I understand that he has already conducted a consultation on this and related issues and is in the process of examining the options arising from that consultation.

  Planning Application (New Mills)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what grounds the Government Office for the South West issued an article 14 direction to the Stroud District Council in
  217
  relation to the planning application (No. 98/1386) by Renishaw plc at New Mills, Wootton under Edge, Gloucestershire; and if he will reach his decision by 1 May. [82453]

  Mr. Caborn
  An Article 14 Direction was issued in order to give the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions more time to consider the application by Renishaw, which was referred to him by Stroud District Council. He will reach a decision as quickly as soon as possible but is unable to give an undertaking that this will be done before 1 May.

  Pesticides
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made by the inter-departmental group reviewing the Government's existing arrangements for monitoring pesticide-related ill health. [82857]

  Mr. Meale
  The Review has been completed and a copy of the group's final report has been placed in both Libraries of the House.

  Railways
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish a consultation document on his plans for changes in the arrangements for the application of public subsidy to the railways. [82629]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 20 April 1999,Official Report, column 479.

  Rail Punctuality
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the compensation arrangements for season ticket holders, with particular reference to the moving average punctuality statistics, when the rail company charters are next reviewed. [81513]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Changes to the compensation arrangements linked to average punctuality would be a matter for negotiation between Opraf and the train operating companies. Opraf's remit is to ensure that the standards set out in the Passenger's Charters are being met. Opraf cannot unilaterally require improvements. The moving annual average is still seen as a reasonably fair way of compensating season ticket holders for poor performance and there are no current plans to change it.

  Executive Agency Targets
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets he has set for (i) the Driving Standards Agency, (ii) the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, (iii) the Highways Agency, (iv) the Vehicle Certification Agency and (v) the Vehicle Inspectorate. [82894]

  Mr. Prescott
  The key targets have been set for the agencies. They are included in the agencies' business plans, which include management objectives, performance indicators and key tasks, where appropriate to the agencies' business. Copies of the business plans will be placed in the Library in due course.
  218
  The key targets for the Driving Standards Agency are
  to:
  contribute to a reduction in the numbers killed or seriously injured in accidents involving drivers aged 17–21 compared with the average for 1993–1997, with no rise in casualties;
  achieve the following customer service targets:
  80 per cent. of all Test candidates will be satisfied with the overall level of service received from the Agency;
  95 per cent. of candidates for the theory test obtain a booking at their preferred test centre within two weeks of their preferred date;
  the national average practical test waiting time for car tests will not exceed six weeks;
  appointments for car tests will be available within 10 weeks at 99 per cent. of permanent driving test centres;
  keep 99.5 per cent. of theory test appointments;
  99.5 per cent of practical test appointments are kept, where they are in place two days prior to the test appointment;
  95 per cent. of all incoming calls to booking offices will access the handling system without receiving an engaged tone;
  all calls will be answered by a human voice in no more than 20 seconds, after being routed by the call handling system;
  achieve an average annual return on capital employed on statutory activities of six per cent. of net assets over the period 1 April 1997 to 31 march 2002; and
  increase the weighted average of fees by no more than the RPI in each of the three years during the period 1 April 1997 to 1 April 2000 and by no more than the RPI minus one per cent. in each of the following two years.

  The key targets for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency are to:
  make an overall efficiency gain of 2.6 per cent;
  achieve a yield:cost ratio of 2.9 to 1 on enforcement (i.e. recoup £2.90 for every £1 spent);
  achieve the following customer service standards; 98 per cent. of Driving Licences issued error-free;
  98 per cent. of new Vehicle Registration Documents issued error-free;
  97 per cent. of amended Vehicle Registration Documents issued error-free;
  ensure the following document turn-round times:
  95 per cent. of Ordinary driving licences within 10 days;
  95 per cent. of Vocational and first Provisional licences within nine days;
  95 per cent. of new Vehicle Registration Documents within
  12 days;
  95 per cent. of amended Vehicle Registration Documents within
  13 days;
  achieve a figure of 94 per cent. of all telephone inquiries being answered within 30 seconds;
  achieve a figure of 96 per cent. of all written inquiries being answered within eight days.

  The key targets for the Highways Agency are to:
  ensure that the percentage of the trunk road network having a zero residual life at the end of the financial year 1999–2000, is less than the figure published in the 1998 report of the National Road Maintenance Condition Survey;
  complete 1,750 lane kilometres of pavement renewal, including reconstruction, overlays, inlays, resurfacing and surface dressing;
  develop jointly with DETR (C) indices of the condition of road pavements, suitable for publication by 31 March 2000;

  219
  ensure that major roadworks on existing roads are: no more than 2.5 miles (4km) long;
  at least six miles (9.6 km) apart, except in urban areas (defined as areas where the speed limit is 30 mph or less), emergencies and otherwise agreed with DETR (C);
  complete 100 bridge maintenance schemes each costing over £200k;
  ensure that there is no material disruption to the network as a result of the Millennium Bug by:
  carrying out a risk assessment on all known Agency control systems, road side equipment and facilities by the end of June 1999; and
  having Agency wide business continuity plans and contingency plans in place;
  complete 100 road schemes costing between £100k and £3 million aimed at improving road safety, contributing to an efficient economy, improving conditions for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians (together with reducing community severance). These schemes are also aimed at reducing the adverse impacts of motorways and trunk roads on the environment and facilitating integration with other forms of transport promoting choice and information for travellers;
  contribute to the Government's target of reducing road casualties by one-third by the year 2000, ensuring that the average accident rates between 1996 and 1999 across the motorway and all purpose trunk road network do not exceed 20 personal injury accidents for every 100 million vehicle kilometres of travel;

  progress the Traffic Control Centre Public-Private Partnership to the point of inviting best and final offers by 31 March 2000;
  achieve 85 per cent of scheme milestones identified in Annex C of the Business Plan;
  put property to economic use ensuring that:
  the percentage of vacant residential properties at the end of the year does not exceed 18 per cent. of the residential portfolio; and
  the percentage of vacant habitable properties empty for more than six months at the end of the year does not exceed three per cent. of the residential portfolio;
  develop and introduce jointly with DETR (C) a revised set of efficiency targets and indicators by 31 March 2000;
  publish a policy statement and action plan by 30 September 1999 on how the Agency will take forward the Government policy on Greening Government Operations;
  attain Investors in People by 31 December 1999;
  manage the Agency's resources (programme and running costs) within the agreed financial allocations ensuring that Agency expenditure is with the target ranges of 95–100 per cent. for the following:
  actual programme expenditure as a percentage of voted programme;
  actual running cost expenditure as a percentage of voted running costs;
  meet all agreed key milestones for the successful introduction of resource accounting and budgeting as shown on page 28 of the business plan;
  continue to improve value for money across the Agency's activities. This target is achieved by attaining eight out of nine of the performance indicators as set out on page 29 of the business plan;
  fulfil the obligations of the Road Users Charter as specified in Annex E of the business plan;
  ensure the service provided to the public by the Agency is in accordance with the six Whitehall Standards listed in Annex F of the business plan.
  220
  The key targets for the Vehicle Certification Agency are to:
  achieve break-even or better on the commercial accounts whilst achieving at least a six per cent. rate of return on capital employed;
  have at least 98 per cent. of approval certificates issued error-free; have at least 98 per cent. of all invoices issued error-free;
  audit at least 50 per cent. of VCA's approved-type approval and 100 per cent. of the management system certification procedures with all non-compliancies found having corrective action plans agreed within 30 working days at the most, with those plans being completed within the specified time;
  ensure that the figure for debtor days is 70 or less;
  invoice within one month after the completion of all Management System Certification assessment activities;
  achieve Investors in People accreditation by the end of the year; outturn within the NRC limit.

  The key targets for the Vehicle Inspectorate are to:
  meet the quality and general effectiveness levels as specified in the Business Plan measures set for 1999–2000;
  meet the requirements on levels and types of activity laid down in the Memorandum of Agreement on each Road Transport Enforcement Scheme as agreed with the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions;
  continue to improve customer focus across VI through the implementation of initiatives in line with Better Government and government direct policies;
  break even while achieving an average six per cent. real rate of return on capital, over the period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 2003;
  achieve an Aggregated Cost Efficiency index of plus one per cent;
  improve staff awareness and satisfaction as measured through the annual survey and assessment against the Investors in People standard;
  secure the long-term development of the organisation through implementation of the Information Systems Strategy and progression of the MOT Computerisation project.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what performance targets he has set the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre Executive Agency for 1999–2000. [82896]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Agency's principal financial target for 1999–2000 is to achieve a minimum contribution to the Exchequer of £1,245,000.

  Operational targets have been set to increase occupancy of the three key conference areas as follows: Churchill Auditorium to 222 days; Fleming Room to 240 days; Mountbatten Room to 200 days.

  The Agency is also being required to achieve additional room hire revenue from banqueting of £175,000 and has the following key customer targets to meet:

  An overall score for quality of staff of 80%.

  An overall score for customer satisfaction of 78%.

  An overall score for quality of venue of 75%.

  The number of complaints received to be less than 2 per 100 events,

  An average response time when answering complaints of less than four working days.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what estimate he has made of the number of landlords in
  221
  (a) Pendle, (b) Burnley, (c) Blackburn, (d) Rossendale, (e) Darwen and (f) Hyndburn whose rents are met from housing benefit; [82321]

  (2) for each year since 1990, how many landlords received rent for their properties from housing benefit. [82320]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  The total numbers of rent allowance cases in Pendle, Burnley, Blackburn, Rossendale, Darwen and Hyndburn (claims from tenants living in the private rented sector) in May 1998

  Local authority

  Rent allowance cases (private landlords, excluding housing associations)

  Pendle

  1,990

  Burnley

  2,670

  Blackburn with Darwen

  2,590

  Rossendale

  1,110

  Hyndburn

  2,100

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System

  The total numbers of rent allowance cases (claims from tenants living in the private rented sector) since May 1990 in Great Britain

  May

  Rent allowance recipients (private tenants, excluding housing associations)

  1990

  not available

  1991

  not available

  1992

  952,000

  1993

  1,068,000

  1994

  1,125,000

  1995

  1,160,000

  1996

  1,155,000

  1997

  1,067,000

  1998

  971,000

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System

SCOTLAND

  Education (Expenditure)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much central Government money was spent per capita in 1998 on helping schools meet special educational needs. [82212]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 26 April 1999]: In the financial year 1998–99, the Scottish Office provided £6.5 million directly to seven grant-aided special schools in Scotland, and £1.2 million to support training of local authority staff working in special needs. It is not possible to express this in capita terms. Expenditure per pupil in local authority schools is the responsibility of each education authority. Local authority expenditure is supported by Aggregate External Finance. Such support is not specific to particular local authority services and it is for each authority to determine the allocation of all resources at its disposal.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much central Government money was spent per capita in 1998 on grants to(a) voluntary aided schools and (b) voluntary controlled schools. [82214]
  222
  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 26 April 1999]: There are no such schools in Scotland.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much central Government money was spent per capita in 1998 on(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools, (c) further education colleges and (d) universities. [82213]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 26 April 1999]: Direct expenditure by the Scottish Office on the education of school pupils is limited to grants made available to Jordanhill School, two self-governing schools, and certain residential special schools. Grants are also made available for pupils at certain independent schools under the Assisted Places Scheme. Comprehensive information on the division of these resources between the primary and secondary sectors is not available. Expenditure per pupil in education authority schools is the responsibility of each education authority. Local authority expenditure is supported by Aggregate External Finance. Such support is not specific to particular local authority services and it is for each authority to determine the allocation of all resources at its disposal.

  The average central Government funding, in the form of grant to further education colleges in Scotland, per full-time equivalent student in financial year 1996-97 (the latest year for which final student data are available) was £3,418.

  Information is not held in the format requested for university students. However, based on the allocation to higher education institutions, including universities, made by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council in 1998-99, the main source of central Government funding, an estimate of spend per full-time equivalent student is £5,465. This does not include additional central Government money which individual institutions may access through a variety of programmes nor spending on the maintenance element of student support.

  Pre-school Education
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of increasing the grant for pre-school education to cover four year old pupils whose parents wish to defer entry to primary school; and if he will make a statement; [81745]

  (2) if he will list those local education authorities which are funding the pre-school education of four year old children whose parents have deferred entry to primary school until after the child's fifth birthday. [81746]

  Mrs. Liddell
  We believe that decisions on whether a child should have their entry to school deferred should be taken locally in consultation with the education authority so that the maturity and preparedness for school of each child can be taken into account on an individual basis. Anecdotal evidence suggests that around 5% of children have their entry to primary school deferred each year. The cost of financing these places through the pre-school education grant would be around £3.5m each year.

  We understand that all local authorities fund a number of children who have had their entry to primary school deferred.

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

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Training Staff (Religious Affiliation)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will provide a breakdown of the religious composition of(a) the training staff employed at each level and (b) the trainees at each Government training centre in Northern Ireland at the latest date for which figures are available. [82193]

  Mr. Ingram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. Roy Beggs, dated 28 April 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, to reply to your question about the religious composition of staff and trainees at the Agency's Training Centres.
  I have consulted colleagues in the Department of Finance and Personnel which, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) and as required by the Fair Employment (Monitoring) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999, maintains monitoring information on the composition of the NICS. In carrying out this function the Department is required to protect the confidentiality of monitoring information held on individual members of staff and of groups where the community background of individuals could be deduced.
  In addition, the Department seeks to ensure that the use it makes of such monitoring information is compatible with the actions or measures it might lawfully take to address any lack of fair participation revealed by monitoring. In practice this means that the NICS does not maintain monitoring information by grade for the staff employed in Training Centres, who constitute a single occupational group. The breakdown of the community background of these staff at 1 January 1999, the latest date for which information is available, is:

  Number

  Percentage

  Protestant

  123

  52.3

  Roman Catholic

  85

  36.2

  Not determined

  27

  11.5

  The Training and Employment Agency also monitors participation in its programmes and services in line with its commitment to equality of opportunity and fair treatment.
  The Agency's 10 Training Centres are responsible for managing approximately 2,700 places on the Agency's Jobskills programme out of a total number of 14,700 Jobskills trainees. There are approximately 120 other training providers delivering the Jobskills programme.
  The community background of trainees in Training Centres, derived from monitoring, is as follows:

  Number

  Percentage

  Protestant

  775

  38

  Roman Catholic

  1,231

  60

  Not determined

  37

  2

  I hope you find this information useful.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Companies House
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets he has set Companies House for 1999–2000. [83002]

  Dr. Howells
  I have set Companies House the following targets for the 1999–2000 year.

  Operational Targets
  To process 99% of statutory documents within 5 days of receipt at Companies House
  To achieve, on average, a monthly compliance rate for accounts submitted of 95%
  To ensure that a minimum of 98% of fiche provided to customers is error-free
  To ensure that there is a minimum of 96% error-free work in current processing
  To answer 90% of all incoming telephone calls within 20 seconds

  Questions delegated to the Chief Executive
  The Chief Executive to reply within 10 days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply

  Complaints Handling
  To clear up 95% of complaints within 10 days and
  To clear up 85% of complaints within 5 days

  Financial Targets
  To maintain a unit cost reduction of 3% in real terms on document registration
  To achieve, taking one year with another, a 6% average rate of return based on the operating surplus expressed as a percentage of average net assets
  To pay bills due within 30 days, or other agreed credit terms, on receipt of goods or services or a valid invoice, whichever is later.

  Telecommunications
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received a report by the Director General of Telecommunications for 1998, as required under section 55 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. [83003]

  Mr. Wills
  Yes. The fifteenth Report by the Director General of Telecommunications is being published today. It covers the period 1 January to 31 December 1998. Copies of the Report have been laid before each House of Parliament.

  Patent Office
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets he has set the Patent Office for 1999–2000. [83001]

  Dr. Howells
  I have set the Patent Office the following targets for 1999–2000.

  Patents
  To issue 14,500 patent search reports or combined search and examination reports on average within 3 months from the date of request, with 90 per cent. of those within 4 months from the date of request.
  To grant 8,500 valid patents on average within 2 years from the date of filing of the request for substantive examination, with 90 per cent. of those within 3 years from the date of request.
  225
  Design
  To register 7,700 designs on average within 5 months from the date of filing of the application, with 90 per cent. of those within 12 months.
  To process 70,000 trade mark class applications with a target to register within 9 months 90 per cent. of those to which no substantive objections are raised or oppositions filed.

  Finance
  To pay 100 per cent. of bills within 30 days of receipt of goods or services or a valid invoice, whichever is the later.

  Questions designated to the Chief Executive
  The Chief Executive will reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to her for reply.

  Efficiency Target
  To increase output in relation to current expenditure by an average of at least 2 per cent. per annum over the period 1998–99 to 2002–03.

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets he has set his Department's Radiocommunications Agency for 1999–2000. [83000]

  Mr. Wills
  I have set the Radiocommunications Agency the following quality of service targets for 1999–2000 in respect of its licensing and enforcement activities, and correspondence. These are in addition to achieving an overall efficiency improvement of 2 per cent. over 1998–99.

  Licensing Targets

  Category A
  Licences that involve no frequency assignment, site clearance or international co-ordination: 100 per cent. of applications and amendments to be processed and despatched within 5 working days.

  Category B
  Licences that involve frequency assignment but no site clearance or international co-ordination: 90 per cent. of applications and amendments to be processed and despatched within 15 working days; the remainder to be processed and despatched within 25 working days or an explanation of the delay provided to the applicant.

  Category C
  Licences that require frequency assignment and site clearance and/or international co-ordination: 90 per cent. of applications and amendments to be processed and despatched within 40 working days; the remainder to be processed and despatched within 60 working days or an explanation of the delay provided to the applicant.

  Renewals
  Renewals of all licences in category A to be processed and despatched within 5 working days; renewals of licences in categories B and C to be processed and despatched within 10 working days.
  226
  Enforcement
  100 per cent. of safety of life services reports of interference to be investigated within 24 hours.
  98 per cent. of business customers reports of interference to be investigated within 5 working days; the remainder within a further 5 days.
  98 per cent. of domestic customers reports of interference to be investigated within 1 month; the remainder within a further month.

  Correspondence
  I also expect all correspondence from hon. Members delegated to the Chief Executive by Ministers or otherwise for reply, and all written complaints addressed to him about Agency services, to be answered within 10 working days of receipt; the Agency's inquiry point to respond to 95 per cent. of calls within 30 seconds; and 100 per cent. of valid invoices to be paid within 30 days of receipt (or as agreed with the supplier).

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research his Department is undertaking on the extent to which employers are seeking to avoid their obligations under the minimum wage legislation. [81541]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Inland Revenue are enforcing the national minimum wage policy, and will supply this Department with data on all matters relating to compliance on a regular basis. In addition, we have asked the independent Low Pay Commission to monitor and evaluate the introduction and impact of the national minimum wage overall.

  North Sea Coal
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment he has made of the potential for underground gasification of coal seams under the North Sea as a source of energy for the United Kingdom; [82441]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the potential use of oil and gas platforms to exploit the underground gasification of coal under the North Sea. [82442]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department published on 22 April Energy Paper 67, which set out the Government's policy on cleaner coal technologies for research and development, technology transfer and export promotion. The Energy Paper includes a detailed account of the potential of underground coal gasification for the UK and the main technology targets for future work in this area. Our planned future R and D work will include studies on the exploitation of underground coal gasification offshore in the North Sea. Copies of Energy Paper 67 have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets he has set his Department's National Weights and Measures Laboratory for 1999–2000. [82999]

  Dr. Howells
  I have set the National Weights and Measures Laboratory the following quality of service and efficiency targets for 1999–2000.
  227
  Financial Targets
  To report a break even situation in the Income and Expenditure Account 1999–2000.
  To meet the net vote target in 1999–2000.

  Operational Targets
  To complete 90 per cent. of European type approvals within 10 weeks.
  To complete all European type approvals within an average of eight weeks.
  To complete 95 per cent. of all calibration jobs (including preparation of certificates) within 18 working days of acceptance of the work.
  To meet 70 per cent. of the milestones included in the work programme agreed between NMPSU and NWML.

  Questions delegated to the Chief Executive
  Chief Executive to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  Financial target. Restated from previous year.
  To reduce the real cost of a programme hour by 4 per cent. over the period 1997–2000.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Mature Students
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of tuition fees on applications for higher education from mature students. [81533]

  Mr. Mudie
  The latest figures we have from the Higher Education Statistics Agency show that the introduction of tuition fees had no negative effect on the total number of mature entrants to higher education in 1998. These figures show that an increasing number of mature students opt to enter higher education via part-time courses.

  Higher Education
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase access to higher education by young people from inner-city areas. [81534]

  Mr. Mudie
  We have enabled the funding council to allocate £30 million a year to promote wider participation by people from disadvantaged backgrounds, which will be allocated by postcode. We intend that Excellence in Cities-our action plan for inner city education-will drive up standards and raise pupils' aspirations, giving many more young people the opportunity to go on to higher education.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will next meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to discuss the expansion targets for higher education. [81527]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I met with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on 17 March. The expansion issues for higher education were discussed at that meeting. We have no immediate plans for further meetings.

  School Admissions
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps have been taken to increase the ability of popular schools to admit those children who have applied for a place. [81535]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is for school admission authorities to fix admission limits for their schools. Where parental demand cannot be satisfied it is for the LEA or, in some cases the governing body, to consider whether to bring forward proposals to expand the school. In considering such proposals, the Secretary of State currently and, from 1 September 1999, the School Organisation Committee, will have regard, among other things, to parental preferences.

  Cycling
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the provision of secure cycle storage facilities in schools and its effect on enabling children to cycle to school. [81536]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Survey information suggests that more children would cycle to school if there were better cycle storage facilities. We are considering ways of improving these facilities, and promoting safer routes and road safety training.

  Funding
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funds in addition to the standard spending assessment allocation have been allocated to schools for 1999–2000. [81537]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  £1.7 billion has been allocated to benefit schools for 1999-2000 in addition to the Standard Spending Assessment allocation.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the planned allocation of resources to central departmental spending for 1999–2000 and subsequent years. [81538]

  Mr. Mudie
  Details are set out in the Departmental Report which was published on 24 March 1999 and a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Top-up Fees
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to allow universities to charge top-up fees. [81539]

  Mr. Mudie
  We have consistently said that top-up fees play no part in the Government's policy on higher education. To that end my right hon. Friend has imposed a condition on grant to the Funding Council to control such fees. Any institution charging top-up fees to students who have been assessed as eligible for fee support could incur financial penalties.

  Resource Allocation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that the additional resources allocated for education are spent on schools. [81540]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote in January to each English Local Education Authority to urge them to use all of the cash increase in the education SSA to support education services, especially the drive to raise school standards. We are monitoring the formal budget returns of authorities to see whether they have done this.

  New Deal
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the operation of the new deal in Leicester. [81542]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In the Leicestershire and Rutland Unit of Delivery the Employment Service are leading the delivery of the New Deal for long term unemployed adults and for lone parents. Fernly Business Services lead the delivery of the New Deal for young people and Pelcombe Training Ltd. is responsible for the pilot launched in November for those aged 25 and over. I am encouraged by some of the innovative approaches being developed and the efforts being made to engage a wide range of local organisations, particularly ethnic minority groups and employers.

  Part-time Students
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to support part-time students in higher education. [81543]

  Mr. Mudie
  From September this year tuition will be free for part-time students on benefits, and from September 2000 loans of at least £500 will be available to part-time students on low incomes. We have already made Access Funds available to part-time students, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England provides a 5 per cent. premium on funding to higher education institutions for each such student.

  Early Years Education
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps have been taken to support playgroups and pre-schools. [81544]

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps have been taken to safeguard the voluntary sector's involvement in early years services. [81546]

  Ms Hodge
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown),Official Report, column 474.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress is being made in improving standards in early years education; and if he will make a statement. [81545]

  Ms Hodge
  Standards in early education are monitored through inspections by Ofsted. Work is underway on reviewing the desirable learning outcomes; creating a new 230
  framework of qualifications for those who work with young children; and reviewing the regulation of early education and day care. This will all contribute to further improvements in quality. In addition, Government funding for the training of early years staff has been made available through the Standards Fund and TECS.

  New Deal for Schools
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils he estimates will benefit from the new deal for schools. [81547]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Based on information supplied by Local Authorities in the third phase of the New Deal for Schools (NDS) programme, we calculate that 1.6 million pupils will benefit from the £340 million allocated recently for projects beginning in 1999–2000. Information on the number of pupils benefiting from the two previous New Deal for School rounds is not available, but we estimate that a further 1.6 million pupils have benefited from those rounds.

  Teaching Standards
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to improve professional standards in the teaching profession. [81548]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have already acted to establish new standards for Qualified Teacher Status, and for those completing their initial training after 7 May 1999, we are introducing an induction year. Newly qualified teachers will have to meet new Induction Standards. National training programmes are already on offer based on headship standards.

  Our Green Paper, "Teachers: meeting the challenge of change", published in December, set out major proposals to improve and strengthen the teaching profession. It makes important proposals to strengthen the teachers' pay structure, teacher appraisal and career and professional development, all of which will improve professional standards. Consultation has made clear that teachers and their professional bodies, initial teacher training providers, and other education bodies are keen to improve professional standards. The Government are now considering how to carry forward the proposals to create a modern and effective teaching profession for the benefit of all our children.

  Non-teaching Assistants
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress made in providing funding for additional non-teaching assistants in schools. [81549]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  As part of the Government's proposal to increase the number of teaching assistants by 20,000 full-time posts (or equivalent) by 2002, we have allocated £22.15 million in 1999–2000 for the Additional Literacy Support programme in primary schools. This will support the deployment of about 2,000 full-time equivalent classroom assistants nationally. In the years 2000–02, funding for the recruitment and training of a further 18,000 full time equivalent assistants will be made available.

  Learning Mentors
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria will apply to obtaining access to a learning mentor. [81550]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  From September 1999, each secondary school pupil in the designated areas will have access to Learning Mentors, based in schools. Learning Mentors will be available to all who need them and will devote the majority of their time to individuals needing extra support in order to realise their full potential.

  We will be agreeing the detailed arrangements for deploying mentors with the relevant local education authorities in partnership with their schools.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future structure and objectives of the careers service. [81551]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced his intention, on 10 March 1999, to publish proposals this summer concerning new local and national arrangements to develop lifelong learning and skills. The Secretary of State will consider, as part of this review, the future structure of the Careers Service in England. The Secretary of State's objectives for the Careers Service are set out in the "Careers Service Planning Guidance", a copy of which is lodged in the Library.

  Community Education
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to encourage schools to support community education. [81552]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department is undertaking a range of initiatives to encourage school-community links-including guidance to be published later this year. The Schools Plus Policy Action Team will report in December on how best to use schools as a focus for community services.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received on the implementation of the Government's policy to reduce class sizes. [81553]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have received a number of representations in various pieces of recent correspondence about the implementation of our policy to reduce infant class sizes.

  Disability Rights Commission
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to appoint the Chair and Chief Executive of the proposed Disability Rights Commission. [83054]

  Ms Hodge
  The Disability Rights Commission Bill has received its Second Reading in the Commons, thereby indicating Parliamentary support for the principle of the 232
  Bill. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, has informed the Department that they may start the recruitment for a Chair and Chief Executive for the proposed Disability Rights Commission. The successful candidates will not be formally appointed to these positions until after the Bill has received Royal Assent.

  Parliamentary approval to this new service will be sought in the Summer Supplementary Estimate for the Department for Education and Employment Vote (Class 1, Vote 1). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £100,000 will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  This expenditure is required to meet the cost of recruiting the Chair and Chief Executive. The urgency arises from the need to have both the Chair and Chief Executive in place as soon as possible after Royal Assent to ensure that public funds are properly protected and to enable their full participation in the planning process to ensure rapid progress to the establishment of Disability Rights Commission in April 2000.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current level of assessed parental income above which a student becomes eligible for (i) full and (ii) part payment of tuition fees; what plans he has to increase these threshold levels in line with inflation; what estimate he has made of the number of students who will become eligible for paying in full or in part their tuition fee if the threshold is not increased in line with inflation; and if he will make a statement. [82654]

  Mr. Mudie
  For the 1998–99 academic year, parents with a residual parental income of less than £16,945 after allowable deductions are not assessed as due to make any payment towards the £1,000 tuition fee contribution. Thereafter, the level of the payment they are asked to make rises in line with their residual income. Parents are assessed as due to make the full contribution if they have a residual income of just over £27,000. The threshold levels have been increased in line with inflation for the 1999–2000 academic year. We estimate that around 30 per cent. of students, where parental income is taken into account, will continue to make no contribution towards the cost of their tuition. A further third will pay less than the full contribution.

  National Grid for Learning
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of state schools he estimates are connected to the National Grid for Learning; and what proportion of teachers in state schools he estimates are thereby able to use their own e-mail addresses. [81476]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department published last year the results of a survey of ICT provision in schools. Subsequent annual surveys will indicate the growth in number of schools with such connections, although the latest estimates of the number of primary, secondary and special schools in England with some form of internet
  233
  access are also given in the table. The Government are committed to ensuring that all schools are connected to the internet by 2002.

  Percentage of schools connected

  DfEE survey March 1996

  DfEE survey March 1998

  BECTa estimate February 1999

  Primary

  5

  17

  30

  Secondary

  47

  83

  90

  Special

  8

  31

  45

  It is for schools to decide whether they make use of services and systems supporting an individual e-mail address for each teacher in the light of their own needs and development plans. The Department will be collecting and publishing figures relating to teachers' and pupils' personal e-mail addresses in the next "Statistical Bulletin on Information Technology in Schools". We expect to publish this information in November 1999.

  Physical Education Training
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the average number of hours spent on PE training during teacher training courses. [82083]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is the responsibility of initial teacher training (ITT) providers to decide what proportion of time should be spent on any particular subject in the courses they run. No information on the amount of time spent on PE, or any other subject, is held centrally and no estimates have been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools did, at the request of the then Secretary of State, carry out a sample survey of 20 ITT providers between October 1996 and December 1997 to provide more information on the preparation of trainees for primary teaching, who were not PE specialists, to teach PE. He reported that on average postgraduate trainees had 23 hours of PE training and that undergraduates had 32 hours: which is a similar proportion of time to that allocated to other National Curriculum foundation subjects.

  Higher Education (Cornwall)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the opportunity for the future development of higher education in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. [81515]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognises the potential contribution the development of higher education could make to Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. We welcome the Combined Universities in Cornwall initiative to develop plans for taking this forward.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on how many occasions special advisers travelled abroad in an official capacity accompanied by Ministers; what was the average cost of each trip per head for the accompanying adviser; and what were the places visited. [82432]
  234
  Mr. Blunkett
  Between 2 May 1997 and 31 March 1999, my Special Advisers have accompanied me and other Ministers on visits abroad in an official capacity within Europe or on European Presidency business on 12 occasions. All travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code. The average cost per head of civil servants, Ministers and advisers on such trips was £546.

  Race Relations Employment Advisory Service
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for the future of his Department's Race Relations Advisory Service. [82330]

  Ms Hodge
  The Race Relations Employment Advisory Service will continue to play a key role in promoting to employers the benefits of race equality at work.

  List 99
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the average time taken from beginning consideration of placing a teacher on List 99 to a decision being made. [82489]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In the year 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999, my Department concluded 448 misconduct cases. The average time taken to conclude those cases was nine months. In some of these cases the nature of the misconduct was not serious enough to consider placing the person on List 99. There can be enormous differences in the complexity of cases referred for consideration. Some straightforward cases are concluded very quickly while other, more difficult, cases take substantially longer.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on how many cases decisions are currently outstanding as to whether a teacher should be placed on List 99. [82490]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My Department's Teachers' Misconduct Team currently has 451 cases which have been referred for consideration. In 159 of these cases the individual has been informed that the Secretary of State is considering placing them on List 99. In the remaining 292 cases, my Department is collecting information before coming to a decision as to whether List 99 action should be considered.

  New Deal (Hotline)
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 21 April 1999,Official Report, column 557, if he will break down by region the calls received by the New Deal Hotline identifying (a) how many were from clients and how many from employers and (b) how many were (i) compliments and (ii) complaints. [82531]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The following table shows a breakdown, by Employment Service Regions, of the number of complaints received from employers and clients through the New Deal Hotline.
  235

  Breakdown of hotline calls: 5 January 1998–26 March 1999

  Region

  Total number of calls received

  Of which client complaints

  Of which employer complaints

  Of which other miscellaneous calls1

  London and South East

  0

  7

  0

  39

  Northern

  0

  1

  2

  11

  Scotland

  0

  10

  0

  148

  Wales

  0

  4

  1

  13

  South West

  0

  2

  0

  1

  East Midlands and Eastern

  0

  4

  3

  144

  West Midlands

  0

  8

  1

  51

  North West

  0

  9

  3

  99

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  0

  11

  2

  152

  Total

  0

  56

  12

  658

  1Other miscellaneous calls include compliments, general inquiries and wrong numbers

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Parole
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average delay in processing parole dossiers at the first application stage for prisoners in England and Wales on the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [82448]

  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.

  The table shows the percentage of first review cases meeting the target and the average delay in the cases that missed the target over the past four quarters.

  Percentage of first review cases meeting 24 week target

  Average delay in first review cases missing 24 week target

  April 1998-June 1998

  45.1

  5.9 Weeks

  July 1998-September 1998

  57.9

  6.3 Weeks

  October 1998-December 1998

  64.8

  5.8 Weeks

  January 1999-March 1999

  74.6

  6.3 Weeks

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those elements of the Schengen supplementary accords, copies of which his Department had not received at the time of the indication he made to the Justice and Home Affairs Council of an intent to apply to join elements of the Schengen system; and when he expects to receive them. [82295]

  Kate Hoey
  Since my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in his reply to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), on 12 March 1999,Official Report, columns 380–82, the areas of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom intended to seek participation, we have received the following further items of the Schengen acquis:

  Sch/Com-Ex (93) 21
  Previously received in English with annex in French

  Sch/Com-Ex (93) 23
  Previously received in French only
  236
  Sch/Com-Ex (93) 24
  Previously received in English with annex in French

  Sch/Com-Ex (98) 13.

  These have all been deposited with the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee and with the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities.

  We expect shortly to receive the remaining Decisions and Declarations of the Schengen Executive Committee adopted during 1998. In keeping with Government policy, these will be deposited with Parliament, provided they have not been classified as confidential by the Schengen states.

  A number of decisions are expected to be adopted at the meeting of the Schengen Executive Committee on 28 April. We expect to receive these texts shortly after 28 April and these will also be deposited with Parliament, subject to the same caveat on confidentiality.

  Parliamentary Ombudsman (Complaints)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of requiring applicants who want to make complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsman under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information to ask an hon. Member to submit their complaints. [82263]

  Mr. Straw
  The White Paper, "Your Right to Know", included an assessment of the arrangements for complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsman under the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information" and concluded that successive Ombudsmen had proved effective in policing the Code. The White Paper also stated that, as part of our proposals for a Freedom of Information Act, the Government favoured a mechanism which is readily available and freely accessible. The draft Freedom of Information Bill, which I hope to publish shortly for consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny, is likely to propose a procedure which will allow a complainant to access the Information Commissioner directly, rather than through an hon. Member.

  Ex-Offenders
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve employment opportunities for ex-offenders; and if he will make a statement. [82454]
  237
  Mr. George Howarth
  Improving offenders' employability and access to the job market is a priority for the probation service for 1999–2000. Probation services are actively involved in the delivery of Welfare to Work programmes, and developing strategies for generating employment, training and education opportunities for offenders, with a particular emphasis on literacy and basic skills provision. Over £3.1 million was spent by probation services in 1997–1998 in partnership with the voluntary sector on the provision of employment, training and education services for offenders.

  Much work has already been done and is continuing to be done to assist offenders in gaining the skills and qualifications necessary to help them in their search for work. Funding has also been made available to probation services under the Crime Reduction programme to develop screening and tutoring programmes to improve the basic skills of offenders. The projects will pilot and evaluate new approaches with the aim of putting the most successful approaches into practice across the country.

  Police Allowances
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total expenditure on each allowance available to police officers, per police force and in total, in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [82456]

  Mr. Boateng
  The total expenditure on all allowances, per police force, for 1994–95 to 1996–97, is set out in the table. No analysis of individual allowances is made. Information for subsequent years is not available.

  Police expenditure on allowances

  £000

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Avon and Somerset

  10,224

  8,315

  7,869

  Bedfordshire

  3,803

  3,682

  3,575

  Cambridgeshire

  3,739

  4,323

  3,489

  Cheshire

  6,763

  6,493

  6,647

  City of London

  5,748

  5,586

  3,654

  Cleveland

  4,910

  4,696

  205

  Cumbria

  3,095

  3,077

  2,863

  Derbyshire

  8,689

  8,438

  8,164

  Devon and Cornwall

  12,473

  12,257

  11,175

  Dorset

  4,250

  4,201

  4,245

  Durham

  3,770

  3,687

  3,664

  Dyfed Powys

  2,413

  2,281

  2,277

  Essex

  not available

  not available

  12,225

  Gloucestershire

  4,275

  4,211

  4,037

  Greater Manchester

  22,078

  20,722

  19,730

  Gwent

  3,930

  3,930

  4,254

  Hampshire

  13,867

  13,613

  13,086

  Hertfordshire

  6,155

  6,042

  5,624

  Humberside

  7,957

  7,833

  7,408

  Kent

  12,670

  12,353

  11,805

  Lancashire

  8,308

  8,010

  7,656

  Leicestershire

  6,329

  6,088

  5,848

  Lincolnshire

  not available

  4,170

  3,752

  Merseyside

  15,791

  15,107

  14,026

  Metropolitan Police

  150,836

  150,178

  142,967

  Norfolk

  6,096

  6,008

  5,234

  North Wales

  3,893

  3,716

  3,909

  North Yorkshire

  3,825

  3,688

  3,683

  Northamptonshire

  4,616

  4,236

  4,221

  Northumbria

  9,367

  8,771

  8,128

  Nottinghamshire

  7,824

  7,518

  7,107

  South Wales

  12,915

  13,016

  10,698

  South Yorkshire

  9,741

  9,677

  9,207

  238

  Police expenditure on allowances

  £000

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Staffordshire

  7,473

  7,399

  7,385

  Suffolk

  5,118

  5,004

  4,733

  Surrey

  5,359

  6,061

  5,064

  Sussex

  9,241

  9,053

  9,049

  Thames Valley Police

  15,807

  15,367

  15,029

  Warwickshire

  4,554

  4,550

  4,591

  West Mercia

  7,691

  7,531

  7,283

  West Midlands

  25,897

  24,747

  23,515

  West Yorkshire

  17,481

  17,003

  16,631

  Wiltshire

  5,051

  5,028

  5,043

  Total

  484,022

  477,666

  460,755

  New Deal
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders serving custodial sentences have taken part in the New Deal scheme through the Prison Service; how many offenders completed the scheme and obtained employment following participation in the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [82455]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Offenders are not eligible for the New Deal while serving custodial sentences, but they can take part in the Prison Service's Welfare to Work programme for 18 –24 year olds running in selected prison establishments. This aims to improve their employability and help them gain the most from the New Deal Gateway, to which they have immediate access on release.

  In the 12 months from April 1998, 2,430 inmates joined the Prison Service programme in the 11 establishments piloting it, and 1,625 had completed it by the end of that period. Early results from an evaluation of the programme indicate that within 6 months of leaving prison, 28 per cent. of those who complete the programme go on to join the New Deal Gateway, compared with 11 per cent. of a control group. A survey of probation officers also indicates that 42 per cent. of programme completers have some employment and 6 per cent. go into education or non-New Deal training within four months of release. These percentages are similar to the control group.

  The programme is now continuing into its second year and the number of establishments has been increased to 13.

PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the civil servants who worked in No. 10 Downing Street, broken down by department, on(a) 1 April 1998 and (b) 1 April 1999; and if he will make a statement. [80059]
  239
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 April 1999]: Civil servants working in No.10 Downing Street on the dates referred to were as follows:

  1 April 1998

  1 April 1999

  Private Office

  11

  12

  Policy Unit

  16

  18

  Press Office

  11

  14

  Strategic Communications Unit

  8

  9

  Appointments and Honours

  7

  9

  Support Staff

  84

  89

  Yugoslavia (NATO Bombing)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the extent of collateral damage caused by NATO forces in Yugoslavia and of the percentage of bombs and missiles which miss their targets. [80616]

  The Prime Minister
  We both assess the risk of collateral damage in advance of UK airstrikes and monitor the results afterwards on a case by case basis. Our pilots train intensively to ensure the greatest possible accuracy in bombing attacks and NATO as a whole has made every attempt to reduce the risk of collateral damage. The cases of injury and death among civilians which have nevertheless occurred have been acknowledged by NATO and are deeply regretted. But the accidental civilian casualties caused —despite these stringent precautions—by NATO —bombing, contrast sharply with the deliberate and calculated slaughter of Kosovar civilians instigated by Milosevic in pursuit of ethnic cleansing.

  Under the terms of paragraph la of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, I am not prepared to release data on the percentage of bombs and missiles which miss their target. It would be wrong to assume that bombs and missiles which miss their target necessarily cause collateral damage.

  United Nations
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister in what circumstances it is possible for intervention by a member state of the UN or a regional organisation in the territory of another UN member state to be authorised by the UN on the basis of a resolution passed by a majority vote in a specially convened session of the General Assembly; and if he will make a statement. [82665]

  The Prime Minister
  General Assembly Resolution 377(V) provides for the General Assembly, in certain circumstances, to make appropriate recommendations for collective measures for the maintenance of international peace and security. Details on the Resolution (known as the Uniting for Peace Resolution) are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister on what authority a state, or regional organisation of states, can be empowered to intervene in the territory of another UN member state, under the United Nations Charter, on the basis of its intervention being in response to a humanitarian catastrophe; and if he will make a statement. [82667]
  240
  The Prime Minister
  Under international law a limited use of force can be justifiable in support purposes laid down by the Security Council but without the Council's express authorisation when that is the only means to avert an immediate and overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. Any such case would in the nature of things be exceptional and would depend on an objective assessment of the factual circumstances at the time and on the terms of relevant decisions of the Security Council bearing on the situation in question.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals were conveyed by President Chirac to NATO partners in the months prior to the commencement of the bombing of Serbia by NATO forces with the objective of making Kosovo the first test of NATO/Russian understanding and collaboration; when such proposals were made; and if he will make a statement. [82666]

  The Prime Minister
  I am not aware of any such proposals.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Default Summonses (Gravesend)
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many (i) liquidated and (ii) unliquidated default summonses were issued by Gravesend County Court in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998. [82300]

  Mr. Hoon
  Gravesend County Court issued 841 liquidated and 151 unliquidated summonses in 1997. The figures for 1998 were 781 and 145 respectively.

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many default summonses were issued by Gravesend County Court between(a) 1 April 1997 and 30 September 1997 and (b) 1 April 1998 and 30 September 1998. [82301]

  Mr. Hoon
  Gravesend County Court issued 528 default summonses between 1 April 1997 and 30 September 1997; and 478 default summonses between 1 April 1998 and 30 September 1998.

  Mistakes of Law
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on(a) the reform of the law relating to the mistake of law rule at common law and (b) the Law Commission report (1994 No.227) entitled "Restitution: Mistakes of Law, Ultra Vires Public Authority Receipts and Payments". [82308]

  Mr. Hoon
  The House of Lords decision in Kleinwort Benson Ltd. v. Lincoln City Council last October means that it is no longer necessary to bring forward legislation to implement the first part of the Law Commission report No. 227 on "Restitution: Mistakes of Law, Ultra Vires Public Authority Receipts and Payments", which dealt with the common law aspects of mistake of law.
  241
  Part 2 of the report proposed changes to the law to ensure that citizens had effective remedies in circumstances where tax was paid but not due. However, developments since the report was published, including the procedures associated with self-assessment of tax liabilities, have created an acceptable balance of rights and responsibilities between the taxpayer and the state. Therefore, the Government have concluded that it is no longer necessary to implement Part 2 of the report.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate, for each of the next 20 years, the size of the gap in pounds per week between the basic state pension and the minimum income guarantee, assuming price indexation of the basic pension and earnings indexation of the minimum income guarantee. [82056]

  Mr. Timms
  We have announced our intention to update the basic state pension annually at least in line with prices, and to increase the minimum income guarantee over time, as resources allow, in line with earnings. The information requested on the basis of the assumptions stated in the question is in the table.

  Difference between the basic state pension and minimum income guarantee for a single pensioner aged 65

  Year

  Difference (£)

  1999

  8.25

  2000

  9.35

  2001

  10.50

  2002

  11.70

  2003

  12.85

  2004

  14.05

  2005

  15.25

  2006

  16.50

  2007

  17.75

  2008

  19.00

  2009

  20.30

  2010

  21.60

  2011

  22.90

  2012

  24.25

  2013

  25.65

  2014

  27.00

  2015

  28.40

  2016

  29.85

  2017

  31.30

  2018

  32.75

  2019

  34.25

  Notes:

  1. The difference is shown in constant April 1999 prices.

  2. The figures assume that earnings grow by 1.5 per cent. per year above prices.

  3. Figures rounded to the nearest £0.05.

DEFENCE

  Foreign Media Interviews
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a translation of his interview in the al-Sharq al Aswat Arabic language newspaper of 23 October 1998. [74139]
  242
  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: I have today placed a translation of the interview in the Library of the House.

  Small Arms Ranges
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on policy with regard to future use of small arms trainer ranges by HM armed forces. [81776]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Small arms trainer ranges have proved a cost-effective way of training servicemen in rifle and, more recently, pistol marksmanship. The Ministry of Defence is considering expanding the role of the trainer ranges to encompass training in the use of a number of other close combat weapons and to improve training realism.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the small arms trainer ranges operational in the United Kingdom prior to the strategic defence review, indicating(a) regular, (b) TA and (c) Cadet Unit numbers catered for at each. [81779]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Small arms trainer (SAT) systems are currently operational at the following locations in the United Kingdom:

  Army

  Location

  Quantity

  Chilwell

  2

  Harrogate

  2

  Chepstow

  1

  Bulford

  1

  Dartmoor

  2

  Ripon

  1

  Windsor

  1

  Preston

  2

  Tidworth

  1

  Liss, Hants

  1

  Chester

  1

  Catterick

  7

  Middle Wallop

  1

  Omagh

  3

  Londonderry

  1

  Belfast

  2

  London

  2

  Chichester

  1

  Canterbury

  1

  Warminster

  2

  Inverness

  2

  Shorncliffe

  1

  Ballykelly

  2

  Colchester

  1

  Brawdy

  1

  Bovington

  1

  Shropshire

  2

  Co. Antrim

  1

  Surrey

  1

  Larkhill

  1

  Lydd

  1

  Lisburn

  1

  Nuneaton

  1

  Portadown

  1

  Arborfield

  2

  Cumbria

  1

  Dover

  1

  Aldershot

  2

  Ballykinler

  1

  Sandhurst

  1

  Holywood

  1

  Bicester

  1

  Glencorse

  2

  Waddington

  1

  243

  Army

  Location

  Quantity

  Staxton Wold

  1

  Leeming

  1

  Coltishall

  1

  Lossiemouth

  1

  Wittering

  1

  Conningsby

  1

  Brize Norton

  1

  Buchan

  1

  Marham

  1

  Uxbridge

  1

  Dorset

  1

  Staffordshire

  1

  Weathersfield, Essex

  1

  Bassingbourn

  2

  Brecon

  3

  Litchfield

  2

  Ballymena

  1

  Winchester

  2

  Pirbright

  2

  York

  1

  Edinburgh

  1

  Armagh

  2

  Territorial Army

  Location

  Quantity

  Bordon

  1

  Truro

  1

  Bridge of Don

  1

  Newcastle

  1

  Sheffield

  1

  Devises

  1

  Bury St. Edmunds

  1

  Newham

  1

  Exeter

  1

  Grantham

  1

  Glasgow

  1

  Liverpool

  1

  Royal Air Force

  Location

  Quantity

  High Wycombe

  1

  Stafford

  1

  St. Mawgan

  1

  Boulmer

  1

  Saxa Vord

  1

  Kinloss

  1

  Cottesmore

  1

  Innsworth

  1

  Odiham

  1

  Henlow

  1

  Brampton

  1

  Cosford

  1

  Valley

  1

  Halton

  2

  Cranwell

  1

  Honington

  2

  Rudloe Manor

  1

  Benson

  1

  Lyneham

  1

  Leuchars

  1

  Royal Navy/Royal Marines

  Location

  Quantity

  Yeovilton

  1

  Norton Manor

  1

  Plymouth

  3

  Portsmouth

  3

  Poole

  1

  244

  Royal Navy/Royal Marines

  Location

  Quantity

  Bickleigh

  1

  Arbroath

  1

  Faslane

  1

  Fareham

  1

  Lympstone

  1

  These facilities can be used by local or visiting units (regular, rseve and cadet) and details of specific users are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Legal Business
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [81761]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My Department uses counsel to conduct legal proceedings or to provide legal advice as recommended by the Department's various solicitors or the Department's Legal Adviser. Junior counsel from the Attorney-General's panel or Queen's Counsel are instructed according to the degree of experience and expertise required in each case.

  The number of occasions on which Queen's Counsel have been instructed in the last three years, and the cost of doing so, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Falklands
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence Royal Air Force what assessment he has made of the effect on the Falkland Islands garrison of the decision of the Government of Chile to withdraw air links to the e Falkland Island; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The suspension of Lan Chile flights between Chile and the Falkland Island will have no effect on the Falkland Islands garrison.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of Sate for Defence what plans he has to meet the Falkland Islands Government's request for armaments for fisheries protection vessels; and if he will make a statement. [81960]

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce his decision on the calibre of guns for Falkland Islands fishery protection vessels; and if he will make a statement. [81870]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  We take the matter of illegal fishing in the Falkland Islands seriously and it is our shared objective with the Falkland Islands Government to combat the problem. Illegal fishing has the potential to undermine the Falklands economy and attempts to conserve fish stocks. Recently, there have been up to an estimated 50 unlicensed vessels in Falklands activities. The number of vessels now appears to be declining.
  245
  In January this year, we authorised the arming of a Fisheries Protection Vessel (FPV) with a 20mm Oerlikon cannon, which is the best weapon for the task of deterring illegal fishing and dealing with it, if necessary. The Falkland Islands Government (FIG) is responsible for the procurement and shipment of the cannon. This process has taken longer than anticipated. We have tried to help FIG speed up the shipment of the consignment but it cannot be carried on a passenger aircraft together with the ammunition needed. Accordingly, the Ministry of Defence has agreed to fly the cannon out on the next freight flight on 6 May.

  FIG requested approval for temporary use of a smaller, 0.50 inch, machine gun on an FPV, as an interim measure. This request was carefully considered and a decision was made not to give approval. The machine gun is not a good visible deterrent and there are concerns that warning shots, which the FPV would be required to fire to alert a suspected unlicensed vessel, would not be seen or heard.

  As a temporary measure, the Ministry of Defence has agreed to our request for one of the Royal Navy vessels stationed in the Falklands to accompany an FPV on its patrols. We have also made representations to the Taiwanese authorities in London and Taipei, as the majority of unlicensed vessels in Falklands waters are theirs. We shall continue to urge the Taiwanese authorities to bring their fleet under control.

  We have received representations on this issue from FIG and its Fisheries Department, several MPs and from members of the public. Commercial operators who are licence-holders have made indirect representations.

  We shall continue to support FIG in its attempts to combat illegal fishing.

  Pay Budget
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's budget for pay within the Defence Operating Costs Budget for 1999 –2000. [82514]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The disclosure of information on planned expenditure on pay at this stage in the financial year could reveal internal assumptions about increases in the pay bill while negotiations on civil service pay for the current year are continuing. I am therefore withholding the information requested under exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons Table la of his Department's expenditure plans 1999 –2000 to 2001 –02 does not contain entries for the years 2000 –01 and 2001 –02. [82516]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Table I a of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1999 –2000 to 2001–2002: Ministry of Defence" does not contain entries for the years 2000 –2001 and 2001 –2002 because I have not decided on the allocation of resources for these years. Internal plans for these years represent projections and planning assumptions used to inform advice to me and my Ministerial colleagues on the affordability of the various 246
  elements of the Defence programme. Such information is covered by Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animals have been used in experiments at each of his Department's sites in each of the last five years. [82526]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 29 April 1999:
  I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about the numbers of animals used in experiments at Ministry of Defence sites in each of the last 5 years.The following figures relate to DERA sites and are in respect of the numbers of procedures undertaken (I animal = 1 procedure; but note that individual animals may take part in several procedures). The figures reflect the information provided annually to the Home Office.

  Year

  No. of Procedures

  1994

  7,654

  1995

  8,914

  1996

  11,221

  1997

  11,083

  1998

  11,215

  I hope the above is helpful.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of his Department's sites are licensed to carry out experiments on animals; and when the licences were issued. [82520]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 29 April 1999:
  I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about licensing arrangements for animal experiments. My reply refers to the arrangements at DERA sites as we undertake the majority of work involving animals on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.
  Under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 two DERA sites are licensed to conduct research that involves the use of animals. These are the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector at Porton Down and the Alverstoke site of the Centre for Human Sciences. Both sites have held licences, known as certificates, since the Act came into force in 1986. The Porton Down certificate had been modified several times since 1986 as facilities have changed and/or been updated.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Submarines (Firth of Clyde)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to modify the regulations governing submerged submarine operations in the Firth of Clyde on weekdays; and if he will make a statement. [82276]
  247
  Mr. George Robertson
  The regulations governing submerged submarine operations are contained in the Submarine/Fishing Vessel Interaction Code of Practice. Changes to the current Code of Practice which relate to the Firth of Clyde are currently with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisation for ratification. The provisions contained therein, which include revised operating procedures in the Firth of Clyde and the requirement to notify the Clyde Fishermen's Association on weekdays when dived submarine operations are taking place in the area, are already being used by the Submarine Flotilla.

  Official Secrets Act
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of the Official Secrets Acts in relation to those employed at(a) Aberporth, (b) Llanbedr, (c) Manorbier and (d) Ty Groes of the Thunderbird Regiment Royal Artillery of Portsmouth and Gosford at the time of the Aer Lingus accident on 24 March 1968.[82275]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The unit referred to, more properly known as the 457 Heavy Air Defence Regiment Royal Artillery (TA), was based at Portsmouth with one battery at Gosport. It was disbanded on 1 April 1967 —almost a year before the Aer Lingus Viscount crashed into the Irish Sea. The establishments listed played no part in the events of that day. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the employees at those establishments or any other MOD employee would have any information concerning the causes of the crash. Nevertheless, I can repeat the assurances already given by my officials to the Irish authorities that if any MOD employee, military or civilian, had any information which could help determine the causes of the crash, there would be no inhibition or restriction whatsoever as to its disclosure to the Irish Accident Investigation Officials.

  Army Technical Support Agency
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Army Technical Support Agency for 1999–2000. [82895]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Chief Executive of the Army Technical Support Agency has been set the following 5 Key Targets for 1999 —2000.

  1. To influence equipment design by obtaining formal tasking from Project Managers/Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) Managers in at least 80 per cent. of designated ILS projects.

  2. To provide a complete and accurate answer to at least 94 per cent of ad hoc inquiries within 2 working days.

  3. To despatch new and reprinted technical publications within the period from receipt of demand as follows:

  (a) For Priority demands, 90 per cent. within 5 working days and,

  (b) For Routine demands, 90 per cent. within 24 working days.

  4. To complete at least: 90 per cent. of Operational projects, 75 per cent. of Priority A projects and 60 per cent. of Priority B projects before the target date agreed with the customer.

  5. To satisfy at least 92 per cent. of customers in the handling of technical projects.

  Operation Allied Force
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what United Kingdom forces have been committed to Operation Allied Force; and if he will make a statement. [83122]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I have today authorised the committal of a significant number of additional RAF aircraft to Operation Allied Force, the NATO air and naval action. We are committing an additional four Harrier GR7 ground attack aircraft, four Tornado GR1 and a Tristar tanker to Operation Allied Force in response to a request from SACEUR for additional air assets. These aircraft will join the more than 700 UK and other allied aircraft already involved in air operations in the Balkans.

  Including the deployments I am announcing today, the following UK units, or elements thereof, are currently committed to Operation Allied Force:

  Royal Navy

  HMS Invincible

  HMS Newcastle

  HMS Iron Duke

  HMS Grafton

  HMS Splendid

  RFA Fort Austin

  RFA Bayleaf

  7 Sea Harrier FA2 aircraft

  10 Sea King helicopters

  In addition, HMS Turbulent is currently patrolling in the area.

  Royal Air Force

  16 Harrier GR7s

  12 Tornado GRls

  3 E3-D Sentry AWACS

  4 Tristar tankers

  4 VCIO tankers

  1 Nimrod.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kosovo
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the cost of restoring Kosovan(a) infrastructure and (b) housing to March 1999 levels. [82475]

  Mr. Foulkes
  It is impossible at this stage to make a reliable estimate of the costs of restoring infrastructure and housing in Kosovo. An early needs assessment will be part of the process for planning refugee return and longer term reconstruction, which was begun by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her colleagues from the US, French, German and Italian development ministries at their meeting in London on 22 April.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how the additional £20 million funding recently announced by her Department for the Kosovar refugees is being spent. [82668]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We are funding airlifts and the necessary logistical support to overcome the constraints on delivering international assistance into the region and to internal movements of supplies. We have put in aircraft
  249
  handling teams at Tirana and Skopje airports and a trucking convoy operation from Dunes port in Albania. We are working with NATO and UNHCR to establish and run refugee centres in Albania and Macedonia. We have provided specialist personnel to strengthen agency capacity in key areas such as healthcare and camp security and have also funded a range of projects of international agencies and NGOs. Full details of the assistance provided by DFID have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposals she has evaluated for the movement of refugees from Macedonia to Albania. [82669]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have received no specific proposals for the movement of refugees from Macedonia to Albania. It is normal practice for refugees to be cared for in the first country in which they seek safety. Any movement to third countries should be entirely voluntary —we have made clear our concern to the Macedonian Government about the way in which people were initially dispatched to other countries, including Albania, without their consent. It must also take into account the hosting capacity of the receiving country —Albania has already received over 350,000 refugees from Kosovo, and facilities there are stretched.

HEALTH

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the number of people with haemophilia infected with hepatitis C by contaminated blood products who are now suffering(a) chronic liver disease and (b) other significant health problems as a result of their infection; [80909]

  (2) what estimates he has made of the number of people with haemophilia who were infected with hepatitis C as a result of their NHS treatment before 1986 and the number of these who are alive today. [80908]

  Mr. Hutton
  We estimate that 4,000 people with haemophilia were infected with hepatitis C through their National Health Service treatment with blood products before the introduction of viral inactivation processes in 1985. The Haemophilia Society assesses that more than ninety patients have died. We do not have information on the number of people with chronic liver disease or other significant health problems, but all identified cases of hepatitis C infection through blood or blood products are referred to a specialist for further assessment, and drug therapy as appropriate. We believe that 6 or 7 people with haemophilia are on the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority's list of people awaiting liver transplants.

  Dentistry
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the amount of unspent Investing in Dentistry funds for 1997 –98; and whether that balance was re-allocated to the 1998 –99 funds. [81911]
  250
  Mr. Denham
  The investing in dentistry scheme was announced in September 1997 and up to £9 million was made available to meet expenditure in that financial year, 1997–98. Grants to the value of £3,836,408 had been approved by the end of March 1998, although by that point grant payments dispensed, and the estimated cost of the additional treatment fees generated by the extra patients registered, had together totalled about £175,000. This is because there is often a period of several months after the approval stage before the additional staff or facilities are in place to receive patients, when the grant becomes payable. Under the current annuality conventions, any money which has been voted by Parliament for a particular year, but which is not needed to meet expenditure chargeable to that year, cannot be carried forward into the next financial year. However, in 1998 –99, a further £10 million was made available for the investing in dentistry scheme.

  Breast Cancer Units
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many specialist breast cancer units in hospitals cover the Greater London area. [81887]

  Mr. Hutton
  The 36 specialist breast cancer units in hospitals covering the Greater London area are:

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals Healthcare Trust

  Bromley Hospitals National Health Service Trust

  Central Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  Ealing Hospital NHS Trust

  East Hertfordshire NHS Trust

  Essex and Herts Community NHS Trust

  Forest Healthcare NHS Trust

  Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  Havering Hospitals NHS Trust

  Hillingdon Hospital West Middlesex

  Homerton Hospital NHS Trust

  King's Healthcare NHS Trust

  Kingston and District Community NHS Trust

  Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust

  Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mount Vernon and Watford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Newham Healthcare NHS Trust

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  Northwick Park and St. Mark's NHS Trust

  Queen Mary's Sidcup NHS Trust

  Redbridge Healthcare NHS Trust

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton Healthcare NHS Trust

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust Hospitals

  The Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust

  St. George's NHS Trust

  St. Mary's NHS Trust

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  Wellhouse NHS Trust

  West Herts Community Health NHS Trust

  West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust

  Whittington Hospital NHS Trust.

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the average survival age for sufferers of cystic fibrosis in(a) 1998, (b) 1988 and (c) 1978; [81753]

  (2) if he will estimate the number of cystic fibrosis sufferers who reached their 18 birthday in (a) 1970 and (b) 1998. [81752]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not available in the form requested. The United Kingdom Cystic Fibrosis Survey can provide survival data based on three year cohorts. According to the Survey's current data (which include 1997 data for deaths from the Office for National Statistics) of people with cystic fibrosis born in the three year period 1986 –88, 93 per cent. survived to age 12; of those born in 1977 –79, 63 per cent. survived to age 21; of those born in 1968 –70, the median survival was 16 years 8 months and 47 per cent. survived to age 18. For the 1986 –88 cohort, 90 per cent. might be expected to survive to age 18. Recent trends for children indicate that the upper limit of survival to age 18 might be about 95 per cent.

  444 people with cystic fibrosis were aged 18 or more at the start of 1978 and 94 reached their 18 birthday in that year; 2,357 people with cystic fibrosis were aged 18 or more at the start of 1997 and 216 reached their 18 birthday in that year. Equivalent figures for the years before 1978 are not available and nor yet are those for 1998.

  A summary of information from the Survey up to 1997 is available from the Cystic Fibrosis Trust. Copies are available in the Library.

  Health Authorities and Trust Financial Plans
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities and trusts have finalised their financial plans for the financial year 1999 –2000. [82670]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 26 April 1999,Official Report, columns 28 –29.

  The financial plans of all health authorities and trusts for the financial year 1999 –2000 are due to be submitted to the National Health Service Executive headquarters by the end of May.

  HIV/AIDS
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the membership of the Steering Group convened to develop the HIV/AIDS strategy; and if he will set out the interests of each member. [82452]

  Ms Jowell
  The membership of the Steering Group convened to develop the HIV/AIDS Strategy is listed, as are their areas of interest in the HIV/AIDS field.

  Chair:
  Mr. David Walden, Head of Health Promotion division in the Department
  252
  Members:
  Dr. David Hawkins—HIV/AIDS and genito-urinary medicine —clinical care
  (Consultant in Genito-urinary medicine; Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, and member of the Expert Advisory Group on AIDS (EAGA);
  Ms Carolyn Roth —HIV/AIDS nursing care
  (Senior lecturer in Midwifery Studies, City University; and member of EAGA)
  Mrs. Diana Kloss —the law in relation to HIV/AIDS (Barrister, University of Manchester and member of EAGA)
  Dr. Lindsey Davies —public health
  (Regional director of public health; Trent National Health Service Regional Office)
  Dr. Sian Griffiths —public health
  (Director of public health, Oxfordshire Health Authority) Professor Michael Adler —HIV/AIDS and Genito-urinary medicine —clinical care
  (Professor of Gentio-urinary Medicine at University College London Medical School)
  Professor Anthony Pinching —HIV/AIDS medicine —clinical care (HIV specialist physician, Professor of Immunology at St. Bartholomew's and the Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry; Director of Association of NHS Providers of AIDS Care and Treatment).

  Nomination to be sought from the Royal College of General Practitioners:
  Dr. Barry Evans —epidemiology of HIV/AIDS
  (consultant epidemiologist in HIV/AIDS and STD Division, Communicable Diseases Centre, Public Health Laboratory Service)
  Mr. Martin Roberts; NHS management issues
  (Chief Executive of Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Health Authority)
  Mr. David Regan —public health
  (Public health specialist, Manchester Health Authority)
  Ms Kate Money —commissioning of HIV/AIDS services
  (HIV commissioner at Brighton Health Authority)
  Dr. Paul Hatton —control of communicable diseases
  Consultant in Communicable Disease Control at Leeds Health Authority;
  Mr. Alan Chapman —community care of people with HIV/AIDS
  (Director of Social Services for Bedfordshire; Secretary of the Disabilities Committee of Association of Directors of Social Services)
  Ms Ros Pearman —community care of people infected and affected by HIV/AIDS in particular children (HIV coordinator, Croydon Borough Council)
  Mr. Joshua Odongo —HIV/AIDS African community issues HIV/AIDS (African communities) health promotion adviser East London and City Health Authority; Chair of African HIV/AIDS Steering Group;
  Ms Kathy Elliot —HIV/AIDS health promotion
  Director, Health Education Authority;
  Mr. Derek Bodell — HIV/AIDS voluntary sector
  (Director National AIDS Trust)
  Mr. Nick Partridge —HIV/AIDS voluntary sector
  (Chief Executive, Terrance Higgins Trust)
  Mr. Ian Kramer —service user
  (Deputy Director, United Kingdom Coalition of people living with HIV and AIDS Ltd.)
  Ms Mary Okoth —women's issues of HIV/AIDS in communities (Community development worker, Positively Women)
  Mr. Paul McCrory —service user
  (Chair of Directors, National Network of self help HIV and AIDS groups).
  253
  Observers from Department for International Development, Prisons Medical Service, Scottish Home and Health Department, Welsh Office, Department of Health and Social Service —Northern Ireland.

  ECG Screening
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce ECG screening for cardiac risks in the young; and if he will make a statement. [82081]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Screening Committee, which advises Ministers about changes to screening policy, has commissioned a report on screening for heart disease in children. This will be considered by its Child Health Screening Policy Sub-Committee shortly. The National Screening Committee will be in a position to offer advice in the autumn.

WALES

  National Assembly
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the posts created in the National Assembly for Wales which stipulate knowledge of the Welsh language as(a) necessary and (b) desirable; and those posts for which there is no such stipulation. [78773]

  Mr. Michael
  Welsh has been specified as essential for posts in the translation service and in the editorial team for the record of Assembly business. Jobs for which Welsh is essential are carefully considered before reaching that conclusion and have attracted a choice of candidates. Posts for which Welsh is desirable or an advantage have been well subscribed by both English and Welsh speakers and also those speaking other modern World languages. An example is the recent Middle Managers recruitment scheme for which Welsh was identified as desirable and which generated over 1,000 applications for a possible 20 posts, the majority from English speakers.

  Welsh has been described as an advantage for a number of other posts. For posts where Welsh is advertised as desirable or an advantage, it could be used as a deciding factor only where two candidates were equally good in all other respects. There are no posts for which a knowledge of Welsh is undesirable.

  1. Posts for which Welsh is essential

  Translators

  Editorial Team

  Committee Clerks —2 (out of 7)

  Deputy Committee Clerks —2 (out of 7)

  2.Posts where Welsh is an advantage

  Head of Committee Secretariat

  Staff of Committee Secretariat

  Head of Public Information and Education Services

  Public Information and Education Support Team

  Head of Members Information and Briefing Service

  Members Information and Briefing Service Support Team

  Head of Chamber Secretariat

  Head of Table Office

  Table Office Support Team

  254

  Private Secretary to the Presiding and Deputy Presiding

  Officer Librarian

  Assistant Economist

  General Executive Officer

  Assistant Librarian

  IS/IT Co-ordinator

  Record of Proceeding Support Team

  3. Other posts

  Director of Public Information and Education

  PS/PA to Director of Assembly Communications

  Middle Managers

  Security Guards/Ushers.

  Consultations (Postal Costs)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will pay the postal costs of voluntary bodies and registered charities requested to respond to Government consultation documents; and if he will make a statement. [80916]

  Mr. Michael
  When voluntary bodies and registered charities are invited to respond to a Welsh Office consultation paper, postal costs are not covered automatically. The Department would consider any claim on its merits, taking account of such factors as the nature of the organisation, the scale of the consultation exercise and the information requested.

  The Welsh Office does not pay postal costs incurred by organisations responding to consultation from other Government Departments. It is for individual Departments to decide whether to cover these.

  Gifted Children
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what initiatives the Government have announced with respect to gifted children; [81585]

  (2) what provision his Department advises local authorities to make with respect to gifted children at state schools. [81584]

  Mr. Hain
  Local education authorities have a statutory duty to ensure pupils of statutory school age receive education suitable to their age, ability or aptitude, including pupils of above average ability. This will usually be in a mainstream school. The National Curriculum provides for children of all abilities, including those who are gifted. The Education Act 1996 gives LEAs discretion to arrange for the withdrawal of a pupil from primary school for the purpose of receiving secondary education once a child has reached the age of 10 years and 6 months.

  Our priority is to improve standards of educational attainment for all children in Wales. The Welsh Office Education White Paper "Building Excellent Schools Together", published in July 1997, recognised the need for schools to stretch gifted pupils to achieve their full potential. The Government have established a Gifted and Talented Advisory Group to contribute to the development of a strategy for the early identification and effective provision for gifted and talented children. The Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for

  255
  Wales (ACCAC), which is represented on the Group, will also ensure that the needs of such pupils are considered as part of their review of the National Curriculum in Wales. Following the transfer of functions, these issues will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Department Legal Business
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [81767]

  Mr. Michael
  The Treasury Solicitor's Department, acting on behalf of the Welsh 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 approval, or that of the Solicitor-General, is required before a Queen's Counsel can be instructed to appear for any Government Department in civil litigation.

  In determining the level of counsel to use, the Department considers the individual circumstances of each case. Amongst other things it takes 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.

  For the years in question Queen's Counsel were
  instructed as follows:

  1997: 3 occasions

  1998: 4 occasions

  1999: 3 occasions.

  Costs paid to date in instructing Queen's Counsel, excluding Counsel engaged on the North Wales Child Abuse Inquiry, are currently £83,376 for the years in question. So far as the costs arising from the North Wales Inquiry are concerned, this is information which cannot be extracted from the file and invoice records without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if consents for building power stations will be a matter devolved to the Welsh Assembly. [82245]

  Mr. Hain
  No.

  Education (Expenditure)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much central Government money was spent per capita in 1998 in Wales on helping schools meet special educational needs. [82198]
  256
  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 26 April 1999]: Local authorities are funded to meet the needs of pupils with special educational needs through the annual local government revenue settlement. It is not possible to identify school expenditure on SEN from the returns made by local authorities.

  In 1997 –98,1.3 million was made available under the Grants for Education Support and Training programme to promote SEN provision.

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

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, for each health authority and NHS trust in Wales, the projected budget surplus or deficit planned by that authority or trust for the financial year 1999 –2000. [82671]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I regret the information requested is not yet available. Health authorities and trusts will prepare their financial projections for the year 1999 –2000 once they have had an opportunity to assess the financial implications of the health authority allocations which will be issued shortly.

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

TREASURY

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what market research and polling has been carried out into the working families tax credit. [80886]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have not undertaken any market research or polling of WFTC.

  VAT (Finance) Order 1999
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the compatibility of the VAT (Finance) Order 1999 with the Sixth VAT Directive following the ruling by the VAT Tribunal on the FDR case on 20 April. [82661]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Order reflects the provisions of EC law better than its predecessor, and is based on extensive consultation with the VAT authorities in other Member States and the European Commission. We are satisfied that it fully complies with European law. We are confident that it would be found to be compatible with the Sixth EC VAT Directive were such a question to be referred to the European Court of Justice.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to repeal the VAT (Finance) Order 1999 following the ruling by the VAT Tribunal on the FDR case on 20 April; and if he will make a statement. [82660]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No.

  Sudden Death Syndrome
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths have been reported from sudden death syndrome for under 25 year-olds in each of the last five years. [82082]

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

  Letter from Tim Hold to Mr. David Taylor, dated 29 April 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to answer your recent question on how many deaths have been reported from sudden death syndrome for the under 25 year-olds in each of the last five years. The information requested is shown in the table below.
  Death certificates do not usually say whether a death was sudden or not, and 'sudden death syndrome' is not a term that is used much in this country. When one of these terms is used, the death is assigned an underlying cause of death of 'sudden death, cause unknown', (International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision code 798).
  However, all deaths that are sudden and unexpected must be referred to a coroner for investigation. Usually a post mortem examination by a pathologist identifies a previously unsuspected disease that caused the death. The table shows the number of deaths at ages one to 24 from heart disease, stroke, and epilepsy which were certified by coroners. This should include all sudden deaths from these diseases, but will also include deaths that were referred to the coroner for other reasons. The table also gives the number of deaths for which no cause could be found by post mortem or inquest but which were not actually stated to have been 'sudden'.

  Sudden deaths, cause unknown, and deaths from selected causes certified by coroners, of people aged one to 24 in England and Wales 1993 to 1997

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Sudden, cause unknown

  15

  21

  17

  20

  18

  Certified by coroner, due to:

  Heart disease

  154

  137

  138

  102

  102

  Stroke

  29

  26

  30

  30

  15

  Epilepsy

  98

  91

  93

  88

  93

  Unknown cause

  26

  27

  35

  40

  41

  Notes:

  Figures do not include deaths from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, or any other deaths under 1 year of age.

  Tax Law Rewrite Project
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on recent developments in respect of the Tax Law Rewrite project. [82998]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am pleased to announce that the Tax Law Rewrite project is continuing to make very good progress. The Inland Revenue will shortly publish the project's fifth Exposure Draft, which contains draft clauses on capital allowances for machinery and plant, dredging and patents. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  This Exposure Draft is the second instalment in a series that will completely rewrite the capital allowances code. The rewritten legislation in this publication will form part of the first rewrite Bill, which will be on capital allowances. The Rewrite project is committed to full consultation. I hope that all those with an interest in legislation will welcome and use this latest opportunity to comment.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Russia
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times British and American officials have visited Russian facilities under the US-British-Russian Trilateral Process to end Russia's offensive biological warfare programme since the process was initiated in September 1992; what were the dates of each visit; and what were the names and locations of each facility visited. [82250]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  British and American officials have visited four Russian facilities under the US-British-Russian Trilateral Agreement. The visits took place from 5 to 16 October 1993 and from 10 to 21 January 1994. Under the terms of the Trilateral Agreement and in line with established practice under Section 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which covers Third Party's commercial confidences, I am unable to provide the names and locations of the facilities visited.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many expert working groups have been set up under the US-British-Russian Trilateral Process to end Russia's offensive biological warfare programme since the process was initiated in September 1992; and what are the names of each of these expert working groups. [82251]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  A working group, comprising UK, US and Russian officials, has met twice since the conclusion of the US-British-Russian Trilateral Agreement: in London in April 1994 and in Moscow in September 1994. The meetings focused on past offensive BW programmes, current BW defence activities, a review of the visits which had already taken place, a "rules of the road" document for visits to military biological facilities and conversion issues. No separate working groups have been established on other aspects of the Trilateral Agreements.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times Russian officials have visited British and American facilities under the US-British-Russian Trilateral Process to end Russia's offensive biological warfare programme since the process was initiated in September 1992; what were the dates of each visit; and what were the names and locations of each facility visited. [82249]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Russian officials have visited one British facility and three American facilities under the US-British-Russian Trilateral Agreement. The visit to the British facility took place from 22 to 25 March 1994. Those to the American facilities took place from 15 to 18 February 1994, from 22 to 24 February 1994 and from 28 February to 2 March 1994. Under the terms of the Trilateral Agreement and in line with established practice under Section 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which covers Third party's commercial confidences, I am unable to provide the names and locations of the facilities visited.

  MEPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on
  259
  the proposals on the agenda of the General Affairs Council of 22 –23 March concerning the establishment of a pan-European MEP voting constituency with pan-European MEP lists; what discussions were held in the Council; and when the matter will next be considered. [82479]

  Ms Quin
  No such item appeared on the agenda for the 22 –23 March General Affairs Council. The European Parliament's proposal for common principles for European Parliamentary elections, adopted in July 1998, suggested the possibility of trans-European lists of candidates. But the Council has yet to give an opinion on the proposal.

  Colombia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning recent harassment of human rights activists in Colombia. [82485]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have received representations on the problems experienced by human rights workers in Colombia, particularly those in the Uraba region, by a number of NGO's as well as from members of the public. I myself raised the issue of human rights workers and in particular the CINEP case, with the Colombian Vice-President, Gustova Bell, when he called on me on 27 April.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are being made to commemorate the 50 Anniversary of the Council of Europe in London on 5 May; and if he will make a statement. [82997]

  Ms Quin
  Ministers of Council of Europe Member States and guests from Strasbourg have been invited to a ceremony in the Palace of Westminster on 5 May at which my hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor will make a keynote address on the importance of the Council of Europe. Her Majesty The Queen will grace a reception at St. James's Palace, where the Council of Europe's Statute was signed 50 years ago on 5 May 1949. The Strasbourg Philharmonic Orchestra will give a concert in the Barbican Centre on 4 May in the presence of HRH Princess Alexandra,

  The United Kingdom is an active member of the Council of Europe which plays a valuable role in promoting human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe. The Council of Europe has helped to set the standards which must form the basis of a stable modern Europe. In recent years, it has played a vital part in fostering these values in the newly democratised States of Central and Eastern Europe and in providing practical assistance to help them achieve the standards to which all Council of Europe members are committed. The Council of Europe is also contributing its expertise to the efforts of the international community to restore peace and stability in the Balkans.

  The Council of Europe, through the legally binding mechanisms of the European Convention on Human Rights and the newly created Single Court, has set the pattern and standard for the protection and promotion of human rights in Europe. The work of the Council in
  260
  promoting the protection of the rights of members of national minorities is particularly vital to the development of the region and the well-being of its citizens.

  The United Kingdom has been active in the work being done to follow up the report of the Committee of Wise Persons, set up after the Council's second Summit in 1997, to enhance the Council of Europe's ability to address the key threats to democracy and fundamental freedoms in Europe today.

  As a signal of the importance that the United Kingdom attaches to this, Her Majesty's Government has put forward a candidate, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), for election to the post of Secretary General of the Council of Europe, which falls vacant at the end of August.

  United Nations
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what stage Article 19 of the UN Charter could be triggered in respect of the US non-payment of its full contributions, with particular reference to loss of voting rights in the General Assembly and other UN agencies; and if he will make a statement. [82655]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Calculations for Article 19 of the UN Charter, under which member states may lose their General Assembly vote if they have outstanding contributions greater than the total of their previous two years' dues, are made on 1 January every year. Article 19 could trigger in respect of the US in January 2000 if it does not pay at least some of its UN arrears this year. The UK and EU urge all member states to pay their UN dues promptly, in full and without conditions.

  Chile
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the issues raised during his meeting with the Chilean Foreign Minister on 21 April. [82483]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Chilean Foreign Minister, Sr. Insulza, cancelled the meeting with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at the last minute for logistical reasons. My right hon. Friend has since spoken to Sr. Insulza. For details of the issues discussed, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) on 28 April 1999,Official Report, column 180.

  Near Abroad Doctrine
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out Her Majesty's Government's policy on the right of UN members, or regional organisations, to intervene in the territory of other member states on the basis of the near abroad doctrine; and if he will make a statement. [82664]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Nations Charter preserves the right of a state or group of states to use force in self-defence in accordance with Article 51; the Charter also allows the use of force under the authorisation of the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter. Cases have also arisen, as in Kosovo, when in the light of
  261
  all the circumstances the use of force is justifiable in support of purposes laid down by the Security Council when that was the only means to avert an immediate and overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. There is no accepted doctrine of the "near abroad".

  Peacekeeping (UN)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out Her Majesty's Government's policy on the application of Article 53 of the UN Charter, with particular reference to Security Council approval for regional organisations' peace enforcing, peacekeeping or humanitarian interventions. [82663]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Under Article 53 of the United Nations (UN) Charter, enforcement action under regional arrangements described in Article 52 requires Security Council authorisation. Prohibitions on the use of force contained in the UN Charter do not preclude the use of force by state or group of states in accordance with Articles 51 or under the authority of the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter.

  Cases have also arisen when, in the light of all the circumstances, a limited use of force was justifiable in support of the purposes laid down by the Security Council but without the Council's express authorisation when that was the only means to avert an immediate and overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. Such cases would in the nature of things be exceptional and would depend on an objective assessment of the factual circumstances at the time and on the terms of relevant decisions of the Security Council bearing on the situation in question.

  We are working to ensure the closest possible co-operation between the Security Council and regional arrangements. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the 30 November statement by the President of the Security Council, "Enhancing Monitoring of Activities authorised by the Council but carried out by Member States or Coalitions of States", which has been placed in the Library of the House (ref. DEP 99/333).

  East Timor
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will promote the appointment of a UN Special Rapporteur for East Timor to monitor human rights in the area. [82467]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 28 April 1999]: We are open to any proposal that makes a peaceful future for East Timor more likely. We welcome the visits to Indonesia of the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women last December and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in February, and look forward to the publication of their reports.

  In the meantime, we note that the UN Office in Jakarta has access to East Timor; and that the establishment of a permanent UN presence in East Timor was discussed at the latest round of talks in New York, under the auspices of the UN Secretary General, between Indonesia and Portugal.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Intervention Board
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Intervention Board will publish its 1997 –98 annual report and accounts. [82853]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I am pleased to announce that copies of the document have been placed in the Libraries of the House today.

  Inward Processing Relief
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the administrative arrangements for applying for inward processing relief; and what plans he has for reform of the system. [82243]

  Mr. Rooker
  Inward Processing Relief (IPR) promotes exports from the EU by putting Community producers on an equal footing with their third country counterparts as regards duty.

  Proposals for reform of the administrative arrangements of the scheme have been the subject of discussions in Brussels over the past two years. The aim of the reform is to ensure that the relief continues to be of real financial benefit to EC business.

  Regular consultation on the review takes place within the UK's own working group made up of representatives from UK business, including the food processing industry, MAFF, DTI and HM Customs and Excise. The recommendations of this group have been channelled into the discussions in Brussels and have positively influenced the Commission's plans for reform.

  The UK fully supports the overall aims of the Commission in its reform and is continuing to press the Commission to speed up the process.

  HM Customs and Excise lead on negotiations on this trade facilitation scheme.

  Badgers
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what methods are being used for killing badgers in the randomised badger culling trial. [81508]

  Mr. Rooker
  Badgers are humanely despatched by shooting.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if a veterinary surgeon will be present when each badger is captured and killed in the randomised culling trial. [81511]

  Mr. Rooker
  The despatch of badgers may only be carried out by fully trained MAFF staff following standard operating procedures. Veterinary staff are not required to be present.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what administrative and practical measures have been put in place to ensure that badger welfare is optimised during the capture and killing of badgers; [81509]
  263
  (2) what training field staff involved in the randomised badger culling trial have received in killing badgers humanely; [81510]

  (3) what training is given to new field staff involved in the randomised badger culling trial in identifying badger field signs and in shooting badgers humanely. [81512]

  Mr. Rooker
  New Wildlife Unit Staff receive initial training in how to recognise badger field activity from experts from the Central Science Laboratory and then work in the field alongside experienced Wildlife Unit Staff until they are fully competent.

  To limit the time that badgers may be left in cage traps, standard operating procedures require that cages set to trap be checked as early as possible the following day and normally no later than 12:00 noon. Trapping will be suspended, if, due to bad weather, there is a risk that cage traps could be flooded or trapped badgers would suffer from extreme exposure. Both temperature and wind-chill are taken into account.

  The despatch of badgers may be carried out only by MAFF staff who have been fully trained, tested and issued with an "Authority to use Firearms on Official Business". Such staff receive external and internal training on the safe and humane use of firearms specifically in relation to badgers. Given the importance of this work, action is being taken to appoint an independent auditor to assess the humaneness of the method of despatch and the proper application of these procedures.

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance targets he has set the Veterinary Laboratories Agency for 1999 –2000. [83047]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I have set the Veterinary Laboratories Agency the following performance targets for 1999 –2000.

  Efficiency
  1. To develop new efficiency indicators that will apply from 1 April 2000.

  Service Deliver
  2. To achieve 85 per cent. of ROAME R&D milestones.

  Service Quality
  3. To achieve NAMAS accreditation for rabies and GLP approval for the small animal accommodation.

  Financial Performance
  4. To recover the full economic cost (before and calculated in accordance with accruals services.
  5. To operate within 95 per cent. and 100 per cent. of allocations by the MAFF Management Board for running costs, capital and receipts.

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance targets he has set the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science for 1999 –2000. [83048]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I have set the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science the following performance targets for 1999 –2000.
  264
  Delivery of Service
  1. To give satisfaction to its customers in the way that outputs are provided taking account of the relevance, timeliness and value for money of outputs and the achievement of ROAME milestones.

  Quality of Science
  2. To maintain a high standard of excellence, based on indicators of scientific and technical quality.

  Efficiency
  3. To achieve the savings forecast in the efficiency plan.

  Financial Performance
  4. To recover from Government Departments and Agencies and external customers the full economic costs (calculated according to accruals accounting) of its services.
  5. To operate within 95 per cent. and 100 per cent. of allocations by the MAFF Management Board for running costs, capital and receipts.

  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance targets he has set the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency for 1999 –2000. [83049]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I have set the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency the following performance targets for 1999 –2000.1. To deliver a 5 per cent. saving on new applications for the Countryside Stewardship Scheme compared with 1998 –99.

  Delivery of Service
  2. 92 per cent. of work completed to time.
  3. 98 per cent. of work completed to quality standards agreed with MAFF and WOAD customers.

  People
  4. To achieve Investors in People accreditation.

  Financial Performance
  5. To recover from Government Departments the full economic cost (calculated to accruals accounting) of its services.
  6. To operate with 95 per cent. and 100 per cent. of allocations by the MAFF Management Board for running costs, capital and receipts.

  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance targets he has set the Pesticides Safety Directorate for 1999 –2000. [83050]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I have set the Pesticides Safety Directorate the following performance targets for 1999 –2000.

  Quality of Service
  1. To deliver the throughput of applications and processing times set out in the tables that follows this list.
  2. To deliver high quality policy advice to Ministers and respond to their policy objectives.
  3. To deliver high quality scientific work.
  4. To conduct a Customer Satisfaction Survey and respond positively to the results.

  People
  5. To maintain Investors in People accreditation.

  Efficiency
  6. To develop new efficiency indicators that will apply from 1 April 2000.
  265
  Financial Performance
  7. To recover from industry and Government the full economic cost (calculated according to accruals accounting) of its services.
  8. To operate within 95 per cent. and 100 per cent. of allocations by the MAFF Management Board for running costs, capital and receipts.

  Table 1: New substances and reviews

  Application type

  Planned receipts

  Planned completions

  Processing time (weeks)

  New Active Substances

  Sift

  13

  16

  21

  Evaluation

  20

  12

  52

  Reviews—UK

  UK anticholinesterase review Programme —full reviews

  28

  4

  —

  Other UK review activity

  17

  24

  —

  Reviews —EC

  EU rapporteur reviews

  —

  —

  —

  Position on Annex 1 decisions

  20

  15

  —

  Total

  98

  71

  190

  1 Overall target —90 per cent. of applications with a stated processing time must be completed within that time

  Note:

  The figures for New Substances and Reviews are based on work in hand and forecasts from Industry and the Commission

  Table 2: Technical secretariat

  Application type

  Planned receipts

  Planned completions

  Processing time (weeks)

  Normal

  320

  370

  40

  Departmental Normal

  10

  10

  50

  Experimental Permit

  5

  5

  26

  Departmental Experimental Permit

  5

  5

  50

  Extrapolated Experimental Approval

  10

  10

  15

  Emergency Off Label

  25

  25

  12

  Non-emergency Off Label

  50

  40

  34

  Fast

  270

  300

  15

  Administrative Fast

  550

  550

  4

  Post Annex 1 Approvals

  55

  55

  —

  Mutual Recognition

  5

  5

  —

  Other

  5

  50

  —

  Total

  1,310

  1,426

  —

  Total of Tables 1 and 2

  1,408

  1,496

  190

  1Overall target —90 per cent. of applications with a stated processing time must be completed within that time

  Central Science Laboratory
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance targets he has set the Central Science Laboratory for 1999 –2000. [83051]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I have set the Central Science Laboratory the following performance targets for 1999 –2000.

  Efficiency
  1. To develop new efficiency indicators that will apply from 1 April 2000.

  Delivery of Science
  2. At least 92 per cent. of work completed to time and within budget.
  3. Achieve a mean score of 3.5 on a scale of 0 to 5 for the assessment of customer satisfaction using the established methodology.
  266
  4. Proportion of project milestones achieved to be at or greater than 82 per cent. (MAFF commissioned projects).

  Financial Performance
  5. To recover the full economic costs (calculated according to accruals accounting) of its services, after allowing for relocation costs.
  6. To operate within 95 per cent. and 100 per cent. of allocations by the MAFF Management Board for running costs, capital and receipts.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance targets he has set the Meat Hygiene Service for 1999 –2000. [83052]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I have set the Meat Hygiene Service the following performance targets for 1999 –2000.

  Operational and service delivery
  1. To control specified risk material
  To take all measures necessary to ensure full compliance in licensed premises with Specified Risk Material Regulations 1997 and other related statutory instruments.
  2. To maintain the formal training programme for staff in HAS
  To ensure that all MHS contract and employed OVSs have received formal training in HAS by the end of the year.
  3. To raise HAS scores
  To ensure that at the end of 1999 –2000 on a rolling three-month average at least 93 per cent. of licensed premises achieve HAS scores of more than 65 and that 75 per cent. of all licensed premises achieve HAS scores of more than 70.
  4. To implement strictly the MHS clean livestock strategy
  To implement strictly the Clean Livestock Policy by ensuring that the percentage of cattle and sheep allowed to be slaughtered under special precautions in categories 3 and 4 is below 10 per cent. of those initially rejected over the course of the year (category 5 animals may not be slaughtered for human consumption).
  5. To ensure a strict prohibition on faecal contamination
  To ensure a strict prohibition on carcases showing any faecal contamination being health-marked for human consumption.
  6. Animal Welfare
  To ensure that the Welfare at Slaughter and Killing Regulations 1995 are enforced in licensed slaughterhouses and to maintain effective monitoring of compliance; to carry out an animal welfare survey in all slaughterhouses by the end of the year.

  Efficiency
  7. To develop new efficiency indicators that will apply from 1 April 2000.

  Financial Performance
  8. To charge costs to industry
  To charge plant operators the recoverable costs (calculated in accordance with the relevant legislation and accruals accounting and Industry Charges Guide) of providing the statutory health inspection at fresh meat premises.
  9. To recover full costs from Government
  To recover from Government Departments, Agencies and the Intervention Board the full economic costs (calculated in accordance with the relevant charging legislation and accruals accounting) of providing agreed services or other work undertaken on their behalf.
  10. To comply with cash restraints
  To operate within 95 per cent. and 100 per cent. of allocations by the MAFF Management Board for running costs, capital and receipts.

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance targets he has set the Veterinary Medicines Directorate for 1999 –2000. [83053]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I have set the Veterinary Medicines Directorate the following performance targets for 1999 –2000.

  Safety and Quality
  1. To provide high quality scientific assessment work.
  2. To provide high quality policy advice to Ministers.
  3. To enter Suspected Adverse Reactions Surveillance Scheme (SARSS) reports onto the database as follows:
  Human SAR reports: within 2 working days
  Serious animal reports: within 2 working days
  Non-serious animal reports: within 10 working days
  4. To report to the Veterinary Products Committee each quarter reviewing trends in SARSS reports and identifying areas requiring evaluation.
  5. To collect 100 per cent. and analyse at least 95 per cent. of the samples collected in the national residues surveillance plan.

  Standards of Service
  6. 100 per cent. compliance with timetables for Centralised and Decentralised authorisation procedures (including Maximum Residue Limits).
  7. 92 per cent. of new Marketing Authorisations to be determined or referred to VPC within 120 clock days.
  8. 100 per cent. of new Marketing Authorisations to be determined within 210 clock days.
  9. 100 per cent. of valid variation applications to have first assessment by 75 clock days and to be determined by 150 clock days.
  10. 100 per cent. of valid renewal applications to have first assessment by 90 clock days and to be determined by 180 clock days.

  Efficiency
  11. To develop new efficiency indicators that will apply from 1 April 2000.

  Financial Control
  12. To recover from industry and Government the full economic cost (calculated according to accruals accounting) of each of its main business activities of:
  licensing and surveillance
  policy work
  residue monitoring
  268
  13.To operate within 95 per cent. to 100 per cent. of allocations by MAFF Management Board for running costs, capital and receipts.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her answer of 18 March 1999,Official Report, column 711, on special advisers, if she will give the total travel cost of each occasion when (a) departmental and (b) non-departmental advisers travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997 and the place visited. [82435]

  Mrs. Beckett
  In the period from 2 May 1997 to 31 March 1999 Special Advisers in my Department travelled overseas in an official capacity on one occasion, to France, Belgium and the Netherlands. The total cost of travel and hotel accommodation was £463.07. All travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Immigration and Asylum Bill Special Standing Committee
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the President of the Council what was the total cost to public funds of the afternoon sitting of the Special Standing Committee on the Immigration and Asylum Bill on 20 April. [82207]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The additional costs incurred were mainly for catering staff overtime, and some minimal costs for committee staff and security. It is not possible to identify the specific additional cost of running this committee to public funds because it is not the House's practice to analyse day to day running costs.

  European Community Documents
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) of 14 April 1999,Official Report, column 275, if she will place her full reply in the Library. [82297]

  Mrs. Becket
  When I reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), I shall, of course, ensure a copy is placed in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to host a lunch in honour of the President of the Swiss National Council on behalf of the Government on Tuesday 4th May when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Empty Government-owned Housing
The Lord Bishop of Oxford The Lord Bishop of Oxford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What advances they have made in bringing the 19,000 empty flats and houses in England owned by the Government and government agencies back into use.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we are currently in the process of collating data on the numbers of homes held by government departments and agencies on April 1st 1999 and details of departments' performance against their targets for tackling the problem of empty homes. We shall publish full details and new performance targets as soon as possible.
However, from returns so far, we know that the Defence Housing Executive has disposed of 2,000 empty properties over the past year, which is 800 over its target of 1, 200. The Highways Agency has sold 589 surplus houses in the same period and has reduced the number of its empty homes by over 200 since April of last year.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, does he agree that the guidelines which the Government give need to be more precise in some respects; for example, about what actually counts as an empty home? Will the Minister consider setting specific targets for government departments about how they might reduce the number of empty flats and houses?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is correct to say that there are some problems of definition in this respect, given the fact that in some government departments (for example, the Ministry of Defence) there is a need to keep a certain proportion of
432
housing vacant. It is not, therefore, vacant in the sense of being surplus. We are attempting to rationalise those definitions.
As far as concerns targets, I can tell the House that all government departments will be setting targets. Indeed, I recently set the target of 18 per cent maximum vacant premises for the Highways Agency, which should bring the figure down from its present level of about 25 per cent.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the various departments have strategies for the use of empty homes? We have heard about figures and targets, but they do not amount to a strategy. The noble Lord will be well aware of the very good examples in local government where local authorities have introduced strategies which, in many cases, have been very successful.
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. It is true that the level of vacancies in local authorities has decreased dramatically in most areas over recent years. Indeed, the figure is now quite low in that respect, as it is for social landlords generally. However, there is a slightly different problem in relation to many government departments; for example, there are particular problems at the Ministry of Defence. In relation to the Highways Agency, which is the second largest of these departments, the amount of time that such properties are actually vacant will depend on the progress of road schemes and whether or not they go ahead. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, may be anticipating me on that point.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House will be grateful that the Minister has given us one or two reassuring figures which show that targets have been met in particular areas. However, if those targets have been met, does that not imply that there were some baselines somewhere? It would have been interesting to hear about them. More importantly, I presume that those baselines would also have applied to other government departments about which we have heard nothing.
I must admit to the House that I have found it most difficult to gain any information on this subject. I am relieved to know that the Minister is in the same quandary. Can the noble Lord help us to take the matter forward by giving us further information on the baseline from which the targets were originally worked out? In that way, the House will be aware of the ground, if you like, that the Government are standing on in relation to their own housing.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give the noble Lord the statistics that he requires. He is correct to say that I do not have knowledge of the total picture. However, I have given the figures for the two largest government departments in terms of empty property—namely, the Ministry of Defence and the Highways Agency. The improvement in relation to the Ministry of Defence Housing Executive is to dispose of 2,000 properties and its figure currently stands at approximately 13, 500. Therefore, if one works backwards, one can work out the figures.

433
As regards the Highways Agency, about which I clearly know more, last year's vacancy level was 25 per cent and, as I said, we are aiming to get that down to 18 per cent. Indeed, in net terms, we have improved the position by 200 houses over the course of the past year. If other departments are doing as well with smaller amounts of housing, that will give the noble Lord a general indication of the picture. However, most other government departments will have relatively few empty houses.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, the Minister referred to targets. He then went on to refer to the Highways Agency and the situation where road schemes are planned but not necessarily built. However, if housing is blighted by possible road schemes, it is perfectly possible for local authorities to use the housing in the meantime. Therefore, ought that not to be the rule?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as a result of the policy introduced by this Government, both the Highways Agency and government departments have been requested to look at the possible use of their housing for short-term social housing, pending the introduction of further schemes. Indeed, there has been some success on that front. However, many of the properties are not available for long-term social housing.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can the Minister say whether any effort is being made to channel these houses when they are sold into the market for those who cannot afford the market price; in other words, cut-price housing for those who cannot afford the full price?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords; in the sense that I have just indicated. Those concerned are looking for social landlords who will provide exactly that kind of housing. But only a limited amount of property is suitable for such use.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the total number of empty houses in this country is far greater than that in the public sector and that, if a determined effort were made to bring those back into use, the need for extra building on greenfield sites would be much reduced?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, There is always bound to be some degree of empty housing in the private sector and, indeed, in the social housing sector. However, there is also a responsibility on the private sector to ensure that the turnover and use of those houses is faster than at present.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister have any idea whether people are being moved out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which is certainly blighting the south-east corner of Kent, into such empty properties as quickly as possible?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is some movement in that respect, but it is fairly small because, by and large,
434
the housing is not in the right areas to meet the serious problem of having to provide bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Moreover, if I may revert to the previous question from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, there are in total over 600,000 empty properties within the private sector whereas in the central government public sector we are only talking about 19,000 in total.

Japanese Knotweed
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to curb the spread of Japanese knotweed.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Japanese knotweed is a large, vigorous weed. It is a non-native introduction which appears to have no natural enemies in Britain. The Government recognise the potential harm that its presence can cause to other species. Under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act it is an offence to plant Japanese knotweed, or cause it to grow, in the wild.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware that the increasing menace of this nine-foot plant is variously described as a marriage of super weeds swamping the countryside and also as a rash of sexual activity leading to a triffid-like invasion of the country, gardens, river banks etc.? It will also grow through concrete. Will the Minister increase the funding to the Environment Agency and other agencies which are trying to deal with this terrible problem?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Environment Agency has undertaken research and has produced an extremely important and valuable leaflet which includes details of other pervasive species that are damaging watercourses such as giant hogweed and Himalayan balsam. I commend the work done by the city and county of Swansea which has worked closely with the Environment Agency for Wales. I also commend the work of Pembrokeshire County Council which is working in partnership with the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park. The problem does not appear to be one of additional funding but of targeting the activities of those agencies which have power to act in this regard.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, do the Government have a list of the total number of this country's endangered species which are being threatened by alien species? Is the Minister aware of the recent so-called "X-files" order instituted by President Clinton in the United States which seeks to enable the Government there to deal with alien species which threaten up to 50 per cent of the endangered species of the United States?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in its news release of 14th December 1998 entitled Doomsday

435
for Wildlife the World Wide Fund for Nature claimed that there is a whole range of species under threat. The work that has been carried out does not appear to suggest that Japanese knotweed is killing natural habitats where it is brought under control. We hope that that work and the work that is being done on biodiversity projects will help to combat the problem the noble Baroness has mentioned.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, are we to be told when this knotweed is not a weed?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I know not.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I cannot even attempt to top that! Is the Minister aware of the difficulty of controlling this weed, particularly with regard to watercourses where chemical sprays have been found to be one of the few methods of controlling it? When it gets a hold, I believe it grows through concrete. However, it is the watercourses that constitute a particular worry in this regard.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the watercourses are a worry. The Environment Agency has issued guidance on control of Japanese knotweed, including the use of specialised and limited chemical agents. A colleague who is not in the Box at present advised me when I was briefed on this subject that she has a real problem with Japanese knotweed in her London garden. She has discovered that the roots go down 17 feet. It is a major scourge.
Lord McNair: My Lords, will the Minister convey to the agencies that will target this problem that if they wish to target the Japanese knotweed that I have in my garden in Wales they will be welcome to do so?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes, my Lords.

Yugoslavia: Oil Embargo
3.14 p.m.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the legal basis in international and maritime law for interrupting the supply of oil to Yugoslavia by sea.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, proposals for a maritime operation are still in the planning stages. We would of course take account of the legal implications of any planned NATO operation before agreeing to it. Any action taken will be in accordance with the law.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her usual clear and explicit Answer. However, I ask for a little more reassurance. Can she assure the House that the embargoes that are proposed will not damage Montenegro or undermine its
436
government; that all friendly states in whose territorial waters these actions may take place have given unequivocal support and agreement; and, finally, that this embargo strategy will not force the Russians into breaking the embargo, with serious consequences?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the law in this area is of course complex. There is customary law, treaties and international conventions. I assure the noble Lord that all of these areas will be considered not only by NATO but also by legal advisers here. We have to make any embargo as effective as we can. NATO is working out military options. We shall take into account any rules of engagement as well as international law. The noble Lord referred specifically to Montenegro. He also mentioned Russia which is not the only supplier. and nor indeed is the sea the only route. We shall seek to make any embargo as effective as possible and as consistent as possible. However, we shall of course take into account the needs of Montenegro in the way the noble Lord suggests.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, as the spokesman of a party which has consistently supported the Government on the Kosovo crisis, and indeed pressed for an international protectorate at an early stage, will the Minister consider carefully whether the present planning by NATO, particularly of its proposed naval blockade but also of its bombing, takes fully into account some of the political repercussions? Will the Minister consider the vocal pleas made by Montenegro today; namely, that the effect of the severe bombing of Bar, its major port, and of its capital, Podgorica, is destabilising them and is an invitation to Milosevic to intervene in that country? That is a serious matter. Will the Minister consider carefully whether that situation can be avoided?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we are in regular contact with Montenegro. EU Foreign Ministers decided on a package of economic support for those hit by the crisis, bearing in mind the particular needs of Montenegro. Mr. Djukanovic is in no doubt of our support for his political and economic reforms. We and our allies have also warned Mr. Milosevic—as I think I have already mentioned to the House on previous occasions, but I do so again because I realise how important this point is—not to move against Montenegro. If he does so, there will be grave consequences.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the Government take every care and precaution not to allow this undesirable and possibly illegal war to spread any further either by land or by sea?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord that this is an illegal war. The action that we are taking is legal. It is justified as an exceptional measure to halt the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe that we have seen played out and which we sadly continue to see being played out.

437
I give the noble Lord the assurance that not only is the action that we have taken legal but that any future action will be legal.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how a sea blockade will stop oil going overland from Romania?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I have already indicated, NATO military planners will not be looking solely at a sea blockade; they will be looking at a number of issues. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear yesterday when answering questions on a similar subject, we understand that there are many different routes by which such oil may be taken. All such eventualities are being looked at.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that she assured the House last week that there had been no failure by NATO leaders, including the Prime Minister, to think far enough ahead about the matter of Kosovo. Why is it that the complex matter of an oil blockade is being considered now rather than weeks ago?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I told the noble Lord last week, as situations develop so does the planning. That is inevitably so. Naturally, when NATO leaders were together last weekend they looked very carefully at the question of an oil embargo. As the noble Lord will know, there is also an EU oil embargo. Your Lordships discussed that matter last week and it was discussed again on 23rd April. There has been no failure of planning. The planning has been carefully undertaken both within the EU and NATO.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, if the Government proceed with the oil embargo, will they have regard to the lessons of the sanctions busting carried out in Rhodesia, where the international oil companies—not least our own oil companies—showed themselves remarkably adept at evading all the laws that man could prescribe?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, not only will military planners be looking at that issue but strategic planners as well. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, should look carefully not only at the NATO planning but at the EU oil embargo to which I have referred. That was agreed on 23rd April and comes into force on 30th April. EU applicants, including some of Serbia's neighbours and Cyprus, are already associating themselves with it. So it is not only the current members of the EU but those who are hoping to join the EU which support the embargo. The noble Lord may be reassured to know that, contrary to some press reports, the United States is also implementing a comprehensive ban on oil.
The Earl of Strafford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the amount of oil coming into Montenegro through Bar is perhaps almost irrelevant and that the
438
land routes for delivering oil to Serbia are highly relevant? The main road is very narrow—in some places tankers will have to slow down to two miles an hour—and there are numerous bridges and viaducts. Does the Minister agree that the land routes would be very tempting targets and that disrupting those routes would be a logical way of solving the problem?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope I have made clear in my answers to the questions of other noble Lords on this point that it is not solely an issue of being one route or, indeed, one supplier. Her Majesty's Government are very much alive to that fact. My right honourable friend, when he was answering questions on this matter in the other place yesterday, made a point of stressing the issue of other routes and the importance of dealing with them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there will be great concern among many people about widening the scope of the war. Is she further aware that if action is taken which is deemed to be illegal and without the support of the United Nations, then, far from gaining friends, NATO is likely to lose friends at a time when it needs many more friends?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that any decision to widen the scope of military action will be based on international law and consistent with the rules of engagement. I have given an explicit assurance to the House on that point. I should also say to the House that, as noble Lords would expect, any such decision will be consistent with the political objectives for pursuing this campaign which my right honourable friend in another place, I and my noble friends here have spelt out on a number of occasions.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have no problems with an oil embargo although, like my noble friend Lord Blaker, I wonder why it was not started weeks ago. The noble Baroness has not yet mentioned Russia. Have the Russians been involved in discussions about the oil embargo? Have they agreed? Will we stop a Russian tanker if one attempts to take oil in? Have we worked out the consequences of such action?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a fair and proper point. Of course we have no wish whatsoever to become involved in a confrontation with Russia. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that the lines of communication are open between him and his Russian counterparts. We are still looking and hoping to work with the Russians on a sustainable solution for Kosovo. NATO heads of state and the Government made clear at the weekend that we still wish to pursue a constructive path with Russia. There have been a

439
number of interchanges since last weekend between Russian politicians and politicians not only from this country but throughout NATO.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the oil being imported into Serbia at the moment is in the form of crude oil? Can the noble Baroness say whether, assuming that the bombing campaign against refineries is successful, that would not he a preferable way of knocking out the supply of fuel to Serbia's military machine?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is asking. Is he asking me whether we should be bombing supplies outside Kosovo?
Lord Avebury: Refineries, my Lords.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I am sure that a number of different options will be looked at in the planning that NATO is undertaking at the moment. Indeed, a number of different options have been raised by your Lordships. The important point that we must bear in mind is that any such action must be not only legal but consistent with the political objectives already articulated by NATO in regard to the military action.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, who in the NATO Alliance was responsible for determining the original strategy for the economic prosecution of this conflict, including legallly restricting fuel and power supplies? When did UK Ministers approve the original strategy?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the strategies have been developing throughout the action and, indeed, before the action started. There has been interchange between all the leaders of NATO. As I have reminded the House on a number occasions, such action can only he taken by consensus within NATO. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary speaks on an almost daily basis to the US Secretary of State and to a number of other key NATO counterparts, as has my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. As the noble Lord knows, there was an opportunity for all the NATO partners to discuss these matters in depth at the weekend. The noble Lord should not think that all of these matters suddenly sprang up last weekend. There was careful planning before the action started and throughout the action there have been discussions between all key partners.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will remember that last weekend the Prime Minister laid heavy stress on this being a "just" war. One of the principles of a just war is that force should be used proportionately and moderately. Can we be assured that the imposition of the oil embargo and any further expansion in the bombing campaign—it seems to some of us that most of the suitable and justifiable targets are now being hit— will be in line with the Prime Minister's understanding of justice in war?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I agree that any prosecution of a just war must
440
be consistent with the objectives of that war. That is the fundamental issue put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I hope that the noble Lord agrees—as does his party, I believe—that the political objectives that Her Majesty's Government and our NATO partners have articulated can be supported. Her Majesty's Government and all our NATO partners very much regret any civilian casualties in this war. Sadly, it is one of the awful truths that war cannot be prosecuted with any certainty that such casualties will not occur. When they do occur it is very much to be regretted. I remind the noble Lord of the appalling carnage which is being wreaked among the Kosovo Albanians by the Serbian forces. I also remind him that we are attempting to be moderate and that such an injunction is more properly addressed to Mr. Milosevic.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, would my noble friend agree with me if I suggested to her that, far from extending the war, the successful and legal interruption of oil supplies to Yugoslavia is a necessary and imperative component of the strategy to bring it to a successful conclusion?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is because Her Majesty's Government and our NATO partners are in agreement that the decision was taken at the weekend to look at the planning that would make such bombing possible. I stress to my noble friend also that it is important that any such bombing is carried out on a legal basis and in a way that is entirely consistent with the objectives that we have set. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out to us only last week, it is not sensible on the one hand to risk our servicemen's lives over Serbia on a regular basis and on the other hand to leave open ways in which oil can get into Serbia when we could possibly prevent such an eventuality.

Whitsun Recess
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Whitsun Recess at the end of business on Thursday, 27th May. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on that day. The House will return from the Whitsun Recess on Monday, 7th June.

House of Lords Bill
3.30 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.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Exclusion of hereditary peers]:
The Earl of Drogheda The Earl of Drogheda moved Amendment No.23A:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert ("except if, on the day this section comes into force, he is such a member and he has attained the age of 75 years")
The noble Earl said: This amendment is an extremely moderate one and my reasons for putting it forward are threefold. First, your Lordships' House is not a place where age, by its very nature, is a drawback. We have been conditioned to the idea of a retirement age. Sixty-five is generally considered the norm. For people whose jobs are largely physical or repetitious, that makes sense. However, for those whose work is stimulating, a statutory retirement age is not essential. Although such an argument may be put forward in areas where mental quickness and agility are of the essence, such as at the Bar or performing in the other place, they are not prerequisites in your Lordships' House.
It may be an advantage and it is certainly a pleasure to observe the swift exchanges of wit which frequently adorn this Chamber. However, there is another area where opinions based on mature consideration and reflection may be of more lasting value, and for such opinions time and experience are a help. Age also brings with it a healthy degree of scepticism, which is surely one of the necessary ingredients of a revising Chamber. Your Lordships' House is an ideal place for such contributions to be of use. I hope that my arguments suffice in convincing your Lordships that there is no inherent drawback to age in your Lordships' House and that it may well bring its advantages.
My second reason might be described as an aesthetic one, and although I realise that such an argument tends to be anathema in this country—and I use it with some caution—I do believe it is a valid one. We are privileged to sit not just in any large room but in this magnificent Chamber where a sense of history and continuity was achieved by the genius of Barry and Pugin, all the more remarkable when we reflect that this building is less than 150 years old. It is largely thanks to their art that our proceedings achieve a convincing gravitas. As we are all aware, the most dramatic change is about to take place here. The retention of those hereditary Peers proposed in my amendment would undoubtedly soften this change and I cannot but believe that the Government would prefer the physical landscape to change more gradually than the constitutional one.
Thirdly, and finally, I make my appeal on the grounds of humanity. Why, purely for the sake of an ideology, inflict the undoubted distress and humiliation that this Bill will cause, particularly on those for whom attendance in your Lordships' House has become of such central importance to their lives and where their long experience of life can be of such value? I beg to move.
The Earl of Longford: For fairly obvious reasons, I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment but I cannot support it. We oldies are difficult to please. If
442
someone gives you a hand across the street, you rather resent it, particularly if it is given by someone of your own age group. Oldies are impossible to please.
I speak at the moment without an interest so I suppose I must declare one for the future. I happen to have been given a hereditary peerage many years ago and now I have been given a life peerage. I can think of only one other colleague who is in that bracket. It is a limited application. We oldies are very lucky if we are treated as well as anyone else. To be treated better than anyone else is something we have never thought of.
I sympathise with the view that you get wiser as you get older, until you lose your marbles. The point about this House is that when you lose your marbles someone persuades you not to come again. I am reminded of a very close friend of mine—I will not say who he was. His wife used to watch him sitting just below the Bar. One day he said to his wife (I will call her Angela but she was not called Angela) "By the way, Angela, you have to vote". I knew that his time had come. The time does come when you have to go.
I am all for old people being treated equally to everyone else. Although I find the amendment almost patronising, I respect entirely the motives of the noble Earl in moving it.
Lord Middleton: Were it necessary to declare an interest, which I do not think is the case, I would have to say that I will be 78 at the end of this week. I thought that the noble Earl might have had his tongue in his cheek in proposing the amendment, but he has proposed it with such charm and so persuasively that I take it at its face value. Taking it at its face value, I have to say that I do not support the amendment. The only premise under which the Government could possibly accept it would be that the over-75s were dotty and would pose no threat from these Benches. Looking back over the years, it is quite obvious that the opposite is the case. Noble Lords will call to mind as many names as I can. Indeed, some of the most effective debaters in this House have been over 85 years of age.
The tragedy about the Bill is that so much talent will be lost from all age groups. That might be mitigated by the Weatherill amendment. But if I were to pick an age group to be retained, it would be the under 35s. No. I would not wish to be here because I was in my dotage and only an ornament. That is the only conceivable reason for the Government accepting it.
In fact another reason occurs to me. The Government might accept it to demonstrate to the world that hereditary Peers were just a bunch of senile old men. I cannot support the noble Earl.
Lord Monkswell: As a relatively junior Member of your Lordships' House, with only 14 years experience on these Benches, I welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, and while I cannot support the amendment, I wholeheartedly support the reasoning behind it.
I speak in support of the sentiment behind the amendment as a precursor to Amendment No.31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. If that

443
amendment is accepted, it will be necessary to determine the selection procedure for the 90 hereditary Peers who will remain when the Bill reaches the statute book. It is presumed that the only mechanism would be election. I suggest that there are two far more significant selection mechanisms: one on grounds of age, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda; the other based on seniority in terms of membership of this House. Either would be sensible, and both need to be considered.
During the limited time that I have been a Member of this House, I have heard contributions from Members with immense age, wisdom and experience. Perhaps I may give two examples. A few weeks ago, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, spoke on the subject of the First World War. The noble Lord said: "I was alive during the First World War". In what other Parliament around the world would there be a member with that experience who could contribute sensibly to parliamentary debate? Perhaps I may—
Lord Acton: I believe that Strom Thurmond of the United States Senate is rather older than the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Lord Monkswell: I stand corrected; but that adds to the strength of the argument.
Another example is that of Lord Cairncross, who was able to contribute on the basis of having been a prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. That brought an extra dimension to our debate. I am only sad that our colleagues in the other place did not listen to the points that he and others made about the Bill during its passage through this place.
My point is that an essential and positive feature of this House is that we do not discriminate on the basis of age. In fact, we positively welcome contributions from our more mature and senior colleagues. I hope that this debate will stress that important dimension in our parliamentary deliberations.
Lord Hacking: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may correct him on one point. Lord Shawcross was the noble and learned Lord who appeared at the Nuremberg trials. "Lord" Caincross—more accurately, Sir Alec Cairncross—was the well known economist. Perhaps the confusion demonstrated by my noble friend illustrates why we should not remain in this House beyond the age of 60.
Lord Monkswell: I am glad to be corrected. But that is not a signal that older Members should go. Perhaps it is the younger Members who should go.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I did not realise that this amendment was quite so important as it has turned out to be. It has provided an opportunity for the noble Lords, Lord Monkswell, Lord Hacking and Lord Acton, to go on the hustings, as it were, and present their credentials to their colleagues, who may well have to decide for whom to vote.
444
The amendment has introduced, albeit narrowly, an interesting point, to which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has added. At the risk of damaging his future career, I agreed with much of what he said.
To link this matter to previous debates. the amendment, if accepted by the Government, would remove one of the arguments used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, against his noble friend Lord Randall and a number of other Members who have argued that we should admit no more hereditary Peers but that those who are already here ought to be allowed gently to "die away"—not quite in an asymptotic curve. because such a curve never comes to an end; it moves into infinity. I doubt whether even the longevity of Members of this place will reach into infinity!
It would help, actuarially, to make sure that the hereditary Members of this House who remain d, to use a rather vulgar reference, die out reasonably quickly, in something like 15 years, as I was informed by the actuary, instead of 60. When I came here, I discovered that I was joining a sub-group of the population who lived much longer than anyone else. I Find that encouraging.
Many of our hereditary colleagues, and indeed life Peers, who are over 75 are very distinguished. We have just heard the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who, as he rightly says, does not now come into the category that requires saving because he has been saved by the life-belt of a life peerage coming downstream from Downing Street. I am sure that the whole House is delighted. But there are others in this House who have played, and still play, an important and interesting role. Perhaps I may give just a few examples. I see the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in his place; the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is also very active in matters of the House; and my noble friends Lord Carrington and Lord Aldington are examples of over-75s who are extremely active. Examples on the Cross-Benches are the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. So there is an argument for retaining those of your Lordships who are over 75 and who bring the experience not merely of age but of having lived through events in this century from which we should still be trying to learn.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on the idea of drawing arbitrary retirement ages. My first proposition, based on my observations of your Lordships, is that dottiness is not necessarily a factor of age. If anyone asks me to prove it, I shall ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to plead the Fifth Amendment on my behalf. Given the assent that I hear from all sides, I do not require to prove it.
Equally, many noble Lords who are over 75, both life and hereditary Peers, still play an important part in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, who is not in his place today, is always hugely interesting in his observations, based as they are on his great experience. My noble friend Lord Renton is another Member to whom noble Lords always listen with great interest. I see the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in his place. I have made a quick check, and I see that the guillotine would just go down on him. We cannot have that,

445
because the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is the only person who understands the famous Barnett formula. One of my noble friends shouts out, "Does he?". I simply say: "I hope he does", because it will become germane to debate in the near future when the Scottish Parliament gets started and wants some more money and people in the south perhaps want to give it less money.
There is a serious point here, although I cannot go along with the narrow angle that only 75 year-olds should be saved. If we are to save any hereditaries, those with a contribution to make are the ones who should be saved. However, it provides me with the opportunity to say a few words about retirement age.
The Earl of Drogheda: When I made reference to 75 year-olds I did not intend that to be exclusive.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I appreciate that his amendment is quite narrowly targeted. It is probable that many noble Lords take my view of retirement age: that it will always be two years ahead of the age at which I am now.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): I am grateful to the noble Earl for moving this amendment in such a moderate and elegant way. We cannot accept it, for a number of reasons. Underlying this Bill is the principle that a person should not be a legislator simply on the basis of heredity. This particular amendment suggests that there should be two processes, both genetic to an extent, to determine whether someone can be a legislator: first, parentage; and, secondly, the ability to survive. That does not seem to us to be a sensible basis on which people should be selected to play a role in the legislative Chamber. First, it would lead to the preservation of a number of hereditary Peers for perhaps as long as between 10 and 15 years, on the basis of actuarial tables. (I apologise for mentioning such a sensitive subject.) Secondly, the amendment is not put forward on the basis that this arrangement awaits the second stage but that it should continue in perpetuity.
In May 1998 there were approximately 113 hereditary Peers over the age of 75. I fully accept that in many, many cases age brings great wisdom, but it is also my experience that from time to time that is not so. Although very many people get better as they get older some do not. For all those reasons, unfortunately we cannot accept the amendment.
Perhaps I may refer to the eminent Peers whose names have been mentioned as an indication of the brilliance of age. My noble friend Lord Callaghan will survive because he is a life Peer rather than for other reasons. The noble Lords, Lord Shawcross and Lord Renton, will also survive because they are life Peers. As for "Lord Cairncross", I do not believe that he exists and, therefore, on any basis he will not survive.
The Earl of Drogheda: I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No.24:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert (", but any person who is excluded from membership of the House of Lords by virtue of this Act shall retain the right to correspond with Ministers of the Crown as if he remained a member of that House")
The noble Lord said: At this stage Amendment No.24 is merely a probing amendment. This is part of a series of amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Caithness. Its prime objective is to discover what the Government have in mind for the future, in particular the interim House. I am also convinced that the public would like to know that.
Experience has taught me that the ability to write to Ministers is as good, or better, a means of getting a sensible answer from government and civil servants as chattering away in your Lordships' House, of which yesterday was perhaps an example. This has become very obvious in the case of the Bill: Ministers do not answer questions and appear not to care what happens to this House in future. I regard such an attitude as either thoughtless or irresponsible. It is probably both.
If the Committee accepts that argument, noble Lords may well ask why this amendment retains the ability for those who are to leave the House to obtain a reply from a Minister. I assure my noble friend Lord Mackay that I am not going on any husting. The reason is simple. Time and time again we have been told—and probably flattered—by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, and most if not all of her colleagues on the Front Bench, that hereditary Peers are useful citizens. When we do not have to appear in this Chamber we shall be able to devote more time to being better and more useful citizens out in the sticks, where many or most of us have non-paid, voluntary jobs in the community.
I am aware of the so-called privileges. One of the reasons why so often we get the job of president or patron of such organisations is that we have been able to put those bodies' cases direct to government. Sadly, government now have an all-pervading influence on our lives and occupations, particularly charities. This was brought home to me forcefully the other day when I attended the annual general meeting of the Institute of Agricultural Secretaries and Administrators as patron. That body has a problem in obtaining academic grants—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is aware of this—to train to meet an unsatisfied demand. I was asked what I could do. My reply was that I would write to the Government and, if the response was unsatisfactory, table a parliamentary Question. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get replies from the Government and they are inclined to be much delayed. At this stage I do not seek the right to ask a parliamentary Question, but this amendment would give those of us who leave the House the right to write and get a reply from a Minister during the interim period.
I am trying to persuade others to take on the odd job that I still have, not least because I am always being made aware of my age. I hope that future Members of the second Chamber will feel obliged to do so in due course. However, there is a snag in that those who remain, or are appointed, as interim Peers will have to be full-time, not part-time backwoodsmen like me and

447
many other noble Lords. Therefore, they will not have the time, inclination or—perhaps more importantly—involvement with such organisations for a long period of time which I believe is essential before taking on such jobs.
If the Minister has been listening and managed to follow my argument—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is to respond—he may now realise that this is one of the arguments that he is bound to lose. If the noble Lord replies with the normal monosyllabic "no" it will mean that we have the duty to resign from the type of jobs that I have mentioned, whereas if he accepts the amendment it will be the first and probably last time that the Government have ever considered accepting something. I believe that it is a case of heads I win, tails the noble Lord loses. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is very brave of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley today to move an amendment of any kind given the difficult position in which he placed the Government yesterday. I suggest to him that the only letter he is likely to receive from the Government is one ordering his instant execution. My noble friend makes the point that no one in this Chamber, including the Government Front Bench, disputes that a good number of hereditary colleagues play a valuable part in many organisations in the community, including local authorities and charitable bodies. One, but only one, of the qualities that they bring to those organisations is their ability to help them when it comes to a problem with government by corresponding directly with Ministers. It would be a pity to lose that important link, which must be helpful to government as well as those organisations, when the hereditary Peers finally left the Chamber.
I am not entirely sure that this needs to go on the face of the Bill. However, it would be a nice gesture if the Government stated that they and their successors intended that Members of the House who had to depart after the Bill became law, if it became law—I say that in case someone picks me up later—would be able to correspond with and get replies from Ministers as quickly as they do now. I would not ask for it to be more swiftly. I think that acceptance of the amendment would be a nice gesture on the part of the Government and a recognition of the service the hereditary Peers have given not only to this House and the country, but also to many organisations in the part of the country in which they live.
4 p.m.
Lord Annan: Throughout the country individuals who are not Members of this House do superb voluntary work. They write to Ministers and may receive a reply. Why should there be a privilege of this kind?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I sometimes wonder whether the noble Lord lives in the real world. Ordinary members of the public who write to Ministers do not receive replies from Ministers.
Lord Carter: Amendment No.24 seeks to provide for hereditary Peers who are no longer Members of the
448
House of Lords to correspond with Ministers on the same basis as when they were Members of the House. Throughout Whitehall it is the custom that Members of the House of Lords who write to Ministers will receive a reply from the Minister. The amendment would confer a right to receive a ministerial reply.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, always asks helpful questions. He made the point that hereditary Peers are useful citizens. Of course they are. So are life Peers. So are the thousands of people who hold neither a hereditary nor life peerage and who give valuable service to the organisations in which they are involved.
The noble Lord referred to the Institute of Agricultural Secretaries and Administrators. It took me back a long way. I was one of those involved in the foundation of that institute many years ago. I did not understand the noble Lord's remark about his duty to resign from all the voluntary organisations with which he is connected. I find that extraordinary. Is the only reason he is involved with those voluntary organisations that he has "Lord" in front of his name? I am sure not.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said it all in his brief intervention.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Does the Minister accept that it might not be the simple fact that he has "Lord" in front of his name but because of the influence that he might bring to bear in your Lordships' Chamber?
Lord Carter: I understand that entirely. Plenty of life Peers will be able to bring influence to bear in your Lordships' Chamber—in fact, over 500 of them.
As I am sure that noble Lords are now fully aware, the purpose of the Bill is to end membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage. lf, after he has left this House, a hereditary Peer wishes to write to a Minister on a particular matter, he can of course do so. It is his democratic right, as it is for all other members of the public. The reply may come from the Minister or from an official. In both cases, the department concerned will endeavour to reply within its stipulated time-scale and as helpfully as possible. No provision is needed to preserve the right of a Peer, or of anyone else, to write to a Minister.
However, it would be wrong to enshrine in legislation the right of a noble Lord who is no longer a Member of your Lordships' House to receive a ministerial reply to his correspondence. To do so would require a creation of duty on Ministers. Why should hereditary Peers receive different treatment from other individuals who are not part of the legislature? Former Members of another place do not receive ministerial replies as of right; nor would they expect to receive one. I fail to see why former Members of this place should do so.
I should point out that throughout Whitehall it is the convention that Cabinet Ministers will always reply to Privy Counsellors irrespective of whether or not they are in the legislature. The Bill will not change that practice.
The Bill is about ending membership of your Lordships' House by virtue of a hereditary peerage. All rights and customs attaching to membership will come to an end. However, should a Minister wish to respond

449
personally to a letter from a hereditary Peer, that is his or her prerogative. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: If I may say so, that was an uncustomarily insensitive reply from the Government Chief Whip. The noble Lord was asked by my noble friend on the Front Bench whether the Government could say something a little sympathetic on the subject. I believe that the Government Chief Whip well knows the role that our hereditary colleagues play in voluntary organisations, and why they are there. It is partly, of course, because of their access to government through membership of this House; but it is also because they are who they are, with the experience and reputation of service that hereditary Peers have had throughout the years.
I hope that the Government will stop doing this. It absolutely disgusts me to hear the Government talk like this about people who have given distinguished service through the years. It continues to happen and it makes me quite angry. Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Will the hereditary Peers who are Privy Counsellors and who write to Ministers about business receive the same priority as life Peers who will continue to be Members of this House and who are Privy Counsellors?
Lord Carter: As regards the last question, I said, and I repeat, that throughout Whitehall it is the convention that Cabinet Ministers will reply to Privy Counsellors irrespective of whether or not they are in the legislature. This Bill will not change that practice.
I am amazed by what the noble Baroness says. I said nothing insensitive. I said that we are all aware of the immense service given to voluntary organisations by hereditary Peers. However, your Lordships have to realise that when a hereditary Peer's membership of this House ends, so will the customs, privileges and rights that go with it. That is entirely fair. That is not insensitive. It is a statement of fact. I am the last person to attack the vast amount of work that has been done over the years by hereditary Peers. But as regards their attachment to voluntary organisations because they are hereditary Peers and can therefore automatically receive letters of reply from Ministers, I hope that they are on the committees, or whatever, of the voluntary organisations because of the undoubted service they give.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the Minister for that reply. When he departs from his brief he becomes his own courteous, sympathetic self. It is the government brief that is the trouble.
The Earl of Radnor: The Minister made a comparison between retiring Members of another place and those who will retire from here. He pointed out, frankly and correctly, that those in another place are in a way relieved of the duty of writing to Ministers and
450
receiving a special reply. But they are happy to be allowed to use the Bars and Dining Rooms of the House and to take other privileges of that nature.
Lord Carter: So far as I am aware, it is only the former Members of another place who come to this House who can use the Bars in the House of Commons.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps I may make a purely practical point. Most of the hereditary Peers of whom we speak, with some exceptions, will be within only two or three years of the end of their time of service with whatever charities or public duties they are involved. It does not seem sensible to waste that investment (if I may put it that way) for the country. Why should it not be possible for them to continue until they cease to operate in that way? It is a practical point. They are involved in most of the organisations for which they work not only because of their sense of duty and service, but also because they can render a practical service to the organisation. Would it be so very difficult to allow that access to Ministers to expire with the end of their public service life?
Lord Carter: If we did so, we would have the invidious problem of the younger hereditary Peers who take an active part in voluntary organisations and who could be there for a very long time indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said that he did not think that the matter was suitable to be placed on the face of the Bill. I am sure that those hereditary Peers who have had contacts with departments and Ministers will continue to provide extremely effective service for the organisations with which they are connected. But we are not prepared to place a duty on Ministers to reply in the way suggested by the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in taking up the batting from the Government Front Bench. It is always nice to have a new batsman and we welcome his fielding of the replies.
I hope that between now and another stage he can give a little more thought to the amendment. Having been a backwoodsman, having started life on the Cross Benches and having taken a leave of absence, I believe that there is a great deal to be said for retaining this right for former hereditary Members of the House to correspond with Ministers. When I was a Minister, I found that a number of charities, voluntary organisations and others benefited hugely. That is the substance of the issue: charities and voluntary organisations benefit; not the Peer himself. Organisations benefit from a hereditary Peer having the right of access by letter to a Minister of the Crown and receiving a reply from a Minister. Recently, my experience has been that some replies, not from Ministers, have not been as forthcoming as a ministerial reply. I hope that the noble Lord will think again.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the convention that he mentioned which pertains throughout Whitehall. I must declare an interest as a Privy Counsellor. I have not always had a reply from a Cabinet Minister. I hope that

451
I shall in future. That is a particular privilege to which I shall be entitled. On the more general question, I hope that the noble Lord will at least take this away and think about it.
The Earl of Erroll: I may be able to help. As we notice a steady move towards a partyless system, perhaps people are worried about the delinking of an MP or a representative at Westminster from the general public. Perhaps this amendment is an attempt to preserve one of the last channels between the executive and the general public.
Lord Richard: May I suggest to the Committee that we are making heavy weather of a point which can be expressed, and was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, in a relatively small compass?
What is wrong with the amendment is that it demands a right. It demands a right for people who have ceased to he Members of Parliament. I do not believe that the Government can legitimately concede that as a matter of right.
On the other hand, it seems to me that a Peer who has been active in a charity and who ceases to be a Member of this House because his peerage was hereditary and who subsequently writes to a Minister will not be treated any differently in future from the way in which he has been treated in the past. This is one of those issues, which so often arise, where there is a difference between the legal entitlement, which cannot be conceded, and the way in which people will operate in practice. The fears of the noble Lord who moved the amendment are, in this regard, frankly, somewhat illusory. I do not think that the Government can concede that as a matter of right. I should be very surprised indeed, if, as a matter of practice, there is any great change.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I want to make the point straightaway that this cannot go into the Bill as an amendment. This sort of right, which is not a statutory right—it is a conventional right—cannot be enshrined in the Bill. I am not seeking that.
Yes, we are making heavy weather. I suppose it is because we are desperately seeking a humane, reasonable approach—a "gesture", as it has been called—from the Benches opposite so that it is recognised that this is not, so to speak, an individual request. It is a request on behalf of a body of people who have rendered great and valuable service to this country and who are willing and who wish to be able to continue to do so. Yes, that is heavy weather, but it could be made a very light affair by the kind of gesture that we are seeking. If we can never achieve a gesture, I believe there will be heavier weather.
Lord Brookman: I have listened carefully to the debate and I can speak from personal experience. When I left the House of Commons in 1969 or 1970 I was out of politics for five years. During that period I was able to write to Ministers and receive replies perfectly satisfactorily without the prestige of being a Member of your Lordships' House or of the House of Commons. In
452
other words, when you write to Ministers, they treat you according to the eminence of the job that you have at that time and in relation to the case that you present to them. I am sure that that will continue. There is no reason why it should not. I entirely accept the assurances of my noble friend on the Front Bench on that point.
Before I sit down, perhaps I can say to the noble Baroness who was offensive to my noble friend on the Front Bench that her remark was unnecessarily offensive. In no way did my noble friend try to belittle the work that hereditary Peers carry out in voluntary organisations. Indeed, he gave special credit to them. I think that the noble Baroness must have misheard him. In no way did he intimate that such Peers would be disregarded in the future. I believe that the attack on this issue has gone on long enough and that we ought now to reach a decision.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Dudley: Unlike my noble friend Lord Caithness, I do not understand how any noble Lord on this side of the House can think that replies from Ministers in this Government are worth 20p, let alone 26p.
Lord Carter: I shall take up some of the points which have been mentioned. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, welcomed me to the Front Bench on this Bill. If he had been here at 12.20 a.m. on Wednesday he would have heard me reply to an amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam.
On this amendment, we have heard only about the voluntary organisations. What about all the commercial organisations with which noble Lords are connected? Will they have the same right or expect the same duty to apply to a Minister to reply if they are well paid directors of commercial organisations? In fact, the head of an important organisation, whether or not a Peer, would receive a ministerial reply in any event, when appropriate. There is no need for such people to be Members of your Lordships' House for them to be taken seriously.
My noble friends Lord Richard and Lord Northfield, with their experience as former Members of the other place and now as Members of this Chamber, explained very well what will happen in practice. Some hereditary Peers very rarely attend, but are very active in voluntary organisations. Should they have the same right?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Carter, say that because I was about to ask whether he would reinforce the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I thought the noble Lord's remark summarised my amendment as I would wish it to be summarised. Of course, I see the problems. Not for the first time, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. On many occasions I have not agreed with him, but I am delighted that he tried to encapsulate what I was trying to say.
One or two other points were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I have fond memories of battles with him a few years ago. One point is whether the cart

453
comes first or the horse. Many of us are appointed to such jobs because we have the ability to use our influence on behalf of a charity. Strangely enough, it is difficult to get people to do such jobs. It will become even more difficult when everybody is professional.
Not for the first time, what has been said by Members of the Committee has made me think. I believe that the answer was summed up by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, my noble friend Lord Pearson and my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth. They all hit the nail on the head. I may wish to return to this on Report, but I am happier having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, had to say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry moved Amendment No: 25:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert—
("(2) But subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of any proceedings in the House of Lords on a bill introduced by a Minister of the Crown providing for—

(a) the maximum duration of Parliament to be extended beyond 5 years, or

(b) new restrictions on the constitutional powers of the Crown. ")

The noble Lord said: I approach this amendment with a considerable sense of modesty as I have never moved an amendment in your Lordships' House before and I do not pretend to be a great constitutional expert. I do not believe that in a fairly long parliamentary life in the other place I ever made a speech about the length of a parliament or the constitutional duties and powers of the Crown.
I was, however, moved to table this amendment. I am delighted to see that a similar declaratory amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has been grouped with it. History reminds me that the length of a parliament is a subject that was discussed by our predecessors between 1907 and 1911 at the time of the Parliament Act 1911. But the subject has not been touched on in our debates about the reform of the House of Lords.
The issue is not only about the duration of a parliament, but the duration of a government. How long can or should a particular government remain in office without being required to approach the electorate and have its democratic role renewed by their decision? There is no minimum period for governments in this country. However, a Bill was introduced on a number of occasions way back in the 1890s which would have provided that no general election should take place within six months of an election previously held. Our predecessors were then worried about a government getting the result they did not want and immediately going back to the country without good reason to try to obtain a more satisfactory result.
I accept that it is a little time since a parliament lasted 17 years, but that was the length of the second Parliament of Charles II. Many of us forget—why should we remember?—that the Parliament of 1935 lasted for 10 years. It was renewed yearly by Herbert Morrison as
454
Home Secretary until 1945 because of the exigencies of war. I am sure that no one blamed the coalition government for that; it was accepted. However, against that historic background I considered that the question of the length of a parliament, and associated with it the constitutional powers of the Crown, should at least be touched upon in debate in your Lordships' House.
All of us would have been reminded that the 1911 Parliament Act was specific and that Clause 7 states:
"Five years shall be substituted for seven years as the time fixed for the maximum duration of Parliament under the Septennial Act of 1715".
The previous Clause 2(1) dealing with vetoes in this House specifically provides that:
"the absolute veto of the House of Lords shall not apply to any Bill containing any provision to extend the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years".
Doubtless many in this House or outside will ask, "Why is he bothering? It is in the Parliament Act 1911. That is not being changed. Why worry about it?". The reason why I worry about it is because the composition of the upper House is being substantially changed by the measure now before your Lordships.
We must consider carefully whether the enactment in the Parliament Act 1911 is sufficiently valid within the context of an upper House whose membership is being substantially changed. I hope that your Lordships will not mind if in that context I quote briefly from the words of Campbell-Bannerman, at that time Liberal Leader, when he moved a Motion on the veto of the House of Lords in a three-day debate in 1907. In that, he made the reduction from seven years of Parliament an absolute and necessary part of the scheme to increase the powers of the House of Commons. He stated:
"We consider that the undoubted danger that the House of Commons with the increase of power which we claim for it"—
as the Liberals did—
"might for some years of its life have its genuine representative character impaired can best be guarded against by a more frequent reference to the electorate. This is, as is known, no new proposal. Most of us on this Bench have voted for quinquennial Parliaments and we believe that the reduction of the period of parliamentary existence to five years will add vigour, freshness and life to our parliamentary system".
The reduction from seven to five years went through in the 1911 Act with almost no discussion. Since then there have been occasional movements in the lower House further to reduce the term of a parliament. Austin Mitchell and Tony Benn, both Labour MPs, in the Reform Bill of May 1985 sought to reduce the maximum life of Parliament to four years.
Why is there such pressure for reduction? They were Back-Benchers, or Opposition Leaders, who were worried about the dangers of over-mighty government who were increasingly out of touch with the electorate and did not want any check on their legislative programme in a more or less independent upper House. In these days of focus groups and opinion polls such a government might find themselves seriously down in the eyes of the electorate and then say, "What we really need is 10 years to finish the job". I confess to having heard that said when I was a Minister in recent

455
Conservative governments. They might say, "We need 10 years to finish the job, so why not extend the life of Parliament to give us that further term?".
One should also add that there is a new volatility in voting which can make governments believe that if only they can hang on for a little longer everything will come right. They might be 20 per cent down in the polls but that might change over the next year. We arrive at the question of whether leaving the 1911 Act as it stands is adequate for the very much reformed upper House which we shall have.
In my judgment, all that turns on the remaining powers of the reformed upper House and of its constitution. Like many other Members, I wish that we had discussed those aspects before we came to the constitution of membership; but we did not and that is behind us. The key question, which I hope Ministers on the Treasury Bench will consider in the apolitical and serious manner in which I am attempting to approach it, is how independent of the House of Commons the second Chamber will be. There is no point in having an absolute right of veto in this House, which under the 1911 Act is given on any Bill to extend the life of the Parliament beyond five years, if this House is to be the poodle of the Prime Minister of the day.
It could he said that after reform has taken place this upper House will always have a majority by virtue of the Parliament of the day. If it is not of independent membership, and if it is in some sense the servant of the Lower House, one is then led to the question of whether there is an argument for a fixed term of Parliament of four years; a fixed term that is outwith the control of the Lower House. I would appreciate the views of the Treasury Minister when he replies to that.
The second part of my amendment touches on the relative question of the constitutional powers of the Crown. I had that in mind in the context of the duration of Parliament. It is true that the Crown is involved in the lengths of Parliaments and in the question of who shall be Prime Minister. All Prime Ministers are formally appointed by the Crown; but my own experience does not go back as far as the Crown preference for Bonar-Law over Austen Chamberlain in 1922 or for Baldwin rather than Curzon in 1923. However, I remember very well that when I entered the House of Commons in March 1974 Ted Heath was not then the leader of the largest party, but we thought that for some time he was looking into the possibility of forming a coalition with the Liberal Party which would enable him to continue as Prime Minister. It is obvious that if he had been able to make that coalition with the Liberals and promised them a certain number of Cabinet seats that would have put the Crown under considerable constitutional strain, because one assumes that the leader of the largest party, Harold Wilson, would have said that he, and not Ted Heath, should clearly be Prime Minister.
More recently, I remember as Government Chief Whip in 1990 having very serious discussions as to what advice we should give the Queen if the Prime Minister lost on the first vote in the party leadership ballot and wished then to give up her seals of office immediately, before the further elections had taken place to decide who was to be her successor.
These are real problems that face the Crown. They are added to by the greater volatility in voting that I have mentioned, and perhaps also by the adoption of proportional representation, which is likely to lead to more cases in the Commons of no major party having an outright majority and therefore to one party seeking to form a coalition—I have just quoted the example of Ted Heath in 1974—and then to be able to form a government that can apparently command a majority. This will put a strain on the Crown in deciding whether to accept the leader of that coalition as Prime Minister.
As Peter Riddell, that very wise political commentator in The Times, remarked a few years ago,
"The monarch's role as umpire only works if it is above controversy. "
In the scenarios that I have just put forward there is a possibility of more controversy surrounding these constitutional powers.
It has been suggested, against this background, that the power to appoint the Prime Minister should be removed from the Crown and put out to a commission of the great and the good, or to the Speaker of the House of Commons. But at the end of the day who appoints the Speaker? Notionally it is done on an all-party basis. In fact, at the end of the day the appointment lies with the majority party in the House of Commons. Equally, who appoints a commission of the great and the good?
It seems to me that we all realise that there is a need for a bulwark of independent senators with whom would rest such final but very difficult decisions. That sounds very much like Athens of the 5th century BC, a son of Platonic ideal that is not possible these days.
Of course, I think of the Privy Council. I declare an interest; I am a Privy Counsellor myself. The Privy Council is all-party, it is independent and it is secret—it keeps matters to itself. Commonwealth countries, such as Canada, have representatives on it. Canada has a nominated Senate, and could therefore feed in to our discussions about what sort of upper House we should have in this country. There are judges on the Privy Council; the judiciary is very strongly represented, not only from this country but from elsewhere in the Commonwealth.
What does the Privy Council do these days?—virtually nothing. Yet I remember that practically the first Starred Question that I asked when I came to the House of Lords was whether the Leader of the House anticipated the Privy Council having any part to play in consideration of reform of the House. I received a one-word answer from the then Leader of the House, who is sitting on the Benches opposite: "No. " That is a pity, because the Privy Council might have had some useful thoughts from independent senators.
I put the amendment before the Committee in the belief that there could be a potential problem, one that needs to be thought about and discussed. If Ministers tell me, "Don't worry. What you're concerned about will never happen", I shall say "Splendid. If that is the case, there is no problem at all in accepting my amendment. " I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Richard: I fear that what I have to say will not be quite so agreeable as my last speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, moved his amendment, which he said was apolitical and reasonable, in his usual charming way. But this is a Bill about composition. It is not a Bill about powers. Everything that the noble Lord said may be germane to a measure dealing with the powers of the House of Lords, but there is no proposal before the Committee that there should be any diminution of the powers of the House of Lords in relation to the extension of Parliament beyond five years, nor that there should be any diminution in the powers of the House of Lords in relation to a diminution in the power of the prerogative. That is not before the Committee. The Bill deals solely with composition.
In tying the two together, the noble Lord's amendment, moved in a charming, rational and apolitical way, is grossly offensive to those of us who sit on this side of the Chamber. The essence of what he is saying—and how dare he say it?—is that the only people capable of dealing with these great constitutional issues and preserving the constitution are the hereditary Peers who are being ejected by the Bill. That is an astonishing proposition, which I totally reject, not only on behalf of the rest of us who are not hereditary Peers, but very strongly on my own behalf.
I have just as much constitutional concern as any Member sitting on the opposite Benches. The idea is ludicrous that in order to preserve five-year Parliaments the hereditary peerage must be kept in abeyance, sitting outside the Chamber so that if a Bill to extend the length of a parliament beyond five years is introduced they can all come trooping in as the guardians of the constitution.
I cannot believe that the noble Lord, who on most matters is very sensible, rational, apolitical and reasonable, really intended to be quite so offensive as the amendment implies. I cannot accept, nor do I believe, that the Committee can accept a situation where it is solemnly alleged that the only group of people who can be trusted with the British constitution are the hereditary Peers.
The noble Lord talked about the life Peers being in thrall to the Government. For the past century we have had a predominance of Conservative hereditary Peers in the House of Lords. The danger is not that Labour governments will produce a Bill to extend Parliament beyond five years. If the situation had been reversed and a Conservative government had proposed the extension of Parliament beyond five years, they would have started with a massive majority in favour. The presumption would have been that the Bill would be passed. The constitutional dangers are greater if the hereditary peerage stays than if it goes.
I apologise for speaking with some heat, but as the noble Lord went on, in his rational, apolitical and moderate way, I found myself becoming angrier and angrier at the implications of what he was saying. I hope
458
that in all the circumstances, when the noble Lord considers this in a calmer manner, he will seek to withdraw his amendment—and do it quickly.
The Earl of Radnor: Would we not be much happier about the future and not be worried, as is the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, who moved the amendment, forgetting how he wanted to solve the matter, if we knew what the House of Lords was going to be like?
Lord Richard: The noble Earl might be happier, but that is not the issue before the Committee. The issue is whether hereditary Peers should be deprived of the right to sit and vote. The strategy of the Labour Government on reforming the House of Lords is well known. We have been round this course many times. It is a two-stage process, of which this is the first stage. All that I am saying is that to tie the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to the argument about the removal of hereditary Peers from the House is illogical, does not make sense, and is deeply offensive to the other parties who are not Conservative.
Lord Crickhowell: I am flabbergasted by the tone of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on this occasion, in suggesting that anything said by my noble friend Lord Renton was grossly offensive. It seems to me, on the contrary, that my noble friend raised a valid and important constitutional issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that the Bill was about composition and not power. But if we are dealing with a constitutional matter the two things are intimately related, and must be. That is so because there is no safeguard in the arrangements for the temporary House to prevent the Prime Minister of the day fixing the nominations.
The nature of the appointments commission that is proposed by the Government, which is to be set up by the Prime Minister and the Government—that is to be dealt with on a later amendment—is concerned only with the appointment of Cross-Bench Peers. Indeed, the Government's White Paper says specifically that the Prime Minister will decide the overall number of nominations to be made by the Queen.
I know that we have had a number of undertakings. I am sure that those are intended and well meant. However, I should point out that we have had undertakings from the Government, which have been quickly overturned. Indeed, we had an example of that yesterday. Undertakings were given in this House about beef on the bone which were overturned 10 months later by a Minister in another place.
Although this legislation is intended to last for only a short time, it may last for very much longer. There may be a different Prime Minister in position by then. It is important that there should be a constitutional safeguard which is effective in any circumstances. A Prime Minister who was tempted to go to Parliament and the House of Commons and seek an extension of the life of Parliament from five to seven years would be precisely the kind of Prime Minister who may be tempted to attack this House. Indeed, if he thought there were

459
legitimate grounds for extending the life of Parliament, no doubt he would find powerful arguments for dealing with this House.
Therefore, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, no constitutional safeguard is provided under the Bill as it stands at present. Surely that is a sufficiently important issue for it to be discussed in this Committee without arousing the fury of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. It is an important constitutional issue which deserves serious consideration.
My noble friend is right, too, to link the issue of the duration of Parliament to that of the constitutional position of the monarch. He drew attention to a number of important considerations regarding the appointment of the Prime Minister and the tensions which may arise in a variety of situations. But it is true also that questions are being asked at this very moment about the use of the Royal Prerogative. That is being raised by Members in another place. Therefore, the question of the role of the monarchy is currently being debated legitimately—I do not object to it—by Members of the party opposite.
Therefore, dealing with the most fundamental role of this House, which is a role of constitutional protection, we should understand precisely what we are doing, as should the country. I am sorry if any Member of the Committee opposite finds that grossly offensive but I hope that my noble friend and others will continue to debate the matter as it certainly deserves to be debated.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The proposition which we are asked to consider was dealt with head on by my noble friend Lord Richard. However kind and sensible the proposition, it is perfectly clear that in the mind of the mover of the amendment, if not every Member opposite, is the thought that there is a need for the House to retain the intelligence and the national interest which resides in the hearts and minds of hereditary Peers.
What is the difference between life Peers and hereditary Peers either in their loyalty to the Crown or the observations of conventions and the constitution? There should be no difference at all and, in my view, there is not. I accept and understand that the hereditary Peers are faced with what, to them, is an extremely important event; that is, the exclusion from sitting and voting in this House. That is all.
On Second Reading we had a very lengthy debate in which many hereditary Peers, supported by their friends who are life Peers, put forward the case that hereditary Peers serve a useful purpose because they are motivated by service, loyalty, duty or pride. Life Peers are motivated by all of those feelings. What is the difference?
One element was left out of their argument; that is, the political element. Hereditary Peers told us that they come here because they are proud to continue the line of service offered by their families. I respect that. They felt that they had a duty to be here.1 respect that. But there was not one word about their allegiance to one party—the Conservative Party. In that debate, noble
460
Lords opposite spoke about many things but not about the party that dare not speak its name, the Conservative Party.
You can dress up the reasons why you do not want hereditary Peers to be deprived of the right to sit and vote. For my part, it is primarily a political issue. I sat on the Labour Benches and I was the Chief Whip. Therefore, I know, beyond doubt, that whenever there was a major vote there was no influx of life Peers; there was an influx of hereditary Peers. They came in out of a sense of duty, loyalty and service to their political party.
I am puzzled as to why noble Lords opposite persist in, first, denying their political heritage; and, secondly, using the time of the House to bring forward what are interesting debating points, but they are not the issue which is before this House. The issue on the Bill, the clause and the amendment is whether we are in favour of taking away the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House; and I am.
The Earl of Perth: I rise because my Amendment No.106 has been grouped with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount. Harry.
I start by saying that we should not become too heated in this debate. We are discussing a Bill which may last for 50 or 100 years, a long period. Whatever the government of the day may say, the abolition of hereditary Peers will cause a fundamental change. I have lived for a long time and so the fact that I shall disappear does not cause me any concern. It is about time I did retire. It is extremely important to realise that this Bill proposes something which may well last—I hope it does—for a long time.
As I said, my amendment is grouped with Amendment No.25 which we are considering at present, and I do not quarrel with that. The sidenote to my amendment states: "Declaratory (No.2)". I looked up "Declaratory (No.1)". It concerns Amendment No.97, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley which covers very much the same ground. It states:
"Nothing in this Act affects the powers of the House of Lords"."
That is really what the Government are saying. I do not quarrel with that; I am delighted to hear it. However, when we debate that amendment let us remember that the purpose is abolition of the hereditary Peers; nothing else.
I remember being told, 40 or more years ago, that the only thing that counts in a Bill is what is actually in it. Ministers may give every kind of assurance—and generally we believe them—but when it comes to the crunch, to an interpretation, all that the law does is to look at what is in the Bill. That is of vital importance and that is why I tabled my amendment. Although there are all sorts of obstacles to this Parliament being lengthened, none of them is certain except the power of veto of this House, in whatever form, over the other place trying to extend its life or to extend the life of a parliament.

461
That being so, I very much hope that in one form or another—Amendment No.25, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, Amendment No.97, or my Amendment No.106—this is accepted by the Government.
I had the pleasure of discussing the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He wrote me a helpful and thoughtful letter on the subject. I wonder whether he would either reply, quoting his letter to me because it is so valuable, or consider placing it in the Library. It states:
"I do hope what he [Lord Carter] said will put your mind at rest. "
I am afraid it does not. It is not that I doubt his intention in any way, or that of the Government. I would like to recall what I have always been told; that is, nothing counts except what is in a Bill in words. I appeal to the Government to consider the point and see whether they can help. The noble Lord, Lord Carter said he would do all he could to make it clear and give as many assurances as necessary. I absolutely accept that. However, as I have tried to show, assurances count for nothing when it comes to the crunch; that is, when we have to decide what a Bill says.
I therefore beg Members of the Committee not to think of this as being derogatory of the Government's intention but to think seriously of the worries many noble Lords have on the matter.
Earl Ferrers: By introducing the amendment my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry has done a good service. Perhaps I may say that he introduced it in an inoffensive, intellectual, and scholastic way. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, became more and more angered by it. He said that the Bill concerns only one issue; that is, getting rid of hereditary Peers. He must see that it goes a good deal further than that. He shakes his head. He seems to have tunnel vision. One cannot remove 600 or 750 people from Parliament and say that it has no outside or alternative effect.
Lord Richard: I am not saying that. Of course I know that it has an effect. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is that the only way of preserving these constitutional prerogatives, and the only way of ensuring that no government extends the life of a parliament, is by bringing the hereditary peerage back into this House for the purposes of considering the Bill. I reject that on my own grounds. With respect, I am just as capable of looking after the constitutional position in this country as the noble Lord.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is far more capable of doing that than I am. However, he knows perfectly well that when one tables an amendment it is often a probing amendment. The noble Lord shakes his head again. That is another example of tunnel vision. It is unlikely that any future government or event would have the effect that all the Peers who had been ejected would suddenly come running back in. The point made by my noble friend is that this concerns a serious constitutional matter.
462
Perhaps I may say, with the greatest respect, that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, made the same mistake in stating that all the Bill does is to get rid of hereditary Peers. He asked why all hereditary Peers belong to the Conservative Party. I can tell him one of the reasons. Before 1958 a number of Peers were, quite correctly, created on the Labour Party Benches. Curiously, the majority of their sons became Conservatives. That was the reason for the introduction of the Life Peerages Act: to encourage more Peers on to the Labour Benches.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter will not reject this totally. It is a serious point but not an inflammatory one. If the Bill is passed as it stands, all hereditary Peers will go and we would be left with an appointed Chamber. We do not know what will happen about the Weatherill amendment, which is another matter entirely. That is what the Bill states and what the Government intend to do. That would totally alter the balance of powers and responsibilities between the two Houses and may well produce a constitutional problem. That is the reason why my noble friend quite correctly highlighted this point.
We do not know what the second Chamber will comprise or who will make the appointments. We do not know whether there will be 100 hereditary Peers. Because of the way the Government have introduced the Bill, the future is unknown. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, it is no good him saying, "Oh, well, this is only about getting rid of hereditary Peers. It doesn't matter. " This affects the constitution hugely and my noble friend is quite right to draw attention to the matter.
Lord Northbourne: Perhaps I may say to the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Graham, that as a hereditary Peer I would be very comfortable if I thought that they would be in a position to make the decisions in future. Under those circumstances, I would be happy to go. However, alas, neither the noble Lord, Lord Richard, nor the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has the power to deliver. We do not know what this Chamber will be like when we, and possibly they, have gone.
5 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: We have no objection to Amendment No.106 which stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, but it is completely unnecessary because there is nothing in the Bill that alters the powers conferred on your Lordships' Chamber or reserved to your Lordships' Chamber by the Parliament Act 1911.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, is another matter altogether. That is not acceptable to us because it retains the votes of the hereditary Peers for special circumstances. It is seriously defective in its drafting. There is nothing in it which prevents a Bill to extend the life of Parliament being moved by a government Back-Bencher with government support.
As for new restrictions on the constitutional powers of the Crown, those powers are now mostly exercised by the Government as part of the Royal Prerogative; for

463
example, the power to sign and ratify treaties or to declare war. Most of us would welcome a government who introduced a Bill to restrict their own powers to exercise the Royal Prerogative by, for example, allowing Parliament to have a voice in the ratification of treaties. But we do not see the need to have any special votes on such a Bill.
To get away from the defects in the drafting, the principle behind the amendment is equally unacceptable; indeed, more so. I do not believe that there is any prospect of any party seeking to exercise the power to prolong the life of a parliament in any circumstances, except the kind of grave national crisis which led to the extension of the lives of the Parliaments elected in 1910 and 1935. But if any party did seek to do so, the life Peers of all parties would have the independence and courage to resist the attempt. I do not believe that the life Peers on the Conservative Benches feel themselves less independent than do their hereditary friends. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, whether he feels less capable of exercising an independent judgment than his noble friend Lord Ferrers. I do not believe that he does.
If a Conservative government tried to extend the life of a parliament and the Conservative Peers believed that they were wrong in doing so, would they vote against their own party? I believe that they would. If they would not do so, the whole argument that your Lordships' House is a bulwark in its present form against the power to extend the life of a parliament must fail. But if it is true that the Conservative Peers would be prepared to vote against their own party if they believed it was acting wrongly in seeking to extend the life of a parliament, that must equally be true of the Peers of other parties. whether they are life or hereditary Peers.
I may have expressed my views less provocatively than the noble Lord, Lord Richard, but in essence my views are exactly the same as the views expressed by both him and the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I do not believe that the amendment is justified.
Baroness Young: This is one of the most important amendments tabled to this Bill and I hope that the Government will look at it very seriously. It may not be correctly drafted, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said., but that is not the point at issue.
The important constitutional point at issue here is whether or not the House of Lords would have the power to prevent the life of a government being extended. The amendment, moved in a balanced and moderate way by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, linked with that of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, makes that important point.
It would be extremely unfortunate if the debate descended into a kind of wrangle as to whether hereditary or life Peers are more independently minded and act more responsibly. That is not what this is about. The truth is that when we determine a constitution, like any legal document, we look at the opportunities for doing things which none of us sitting in this Chamber today would think are right. But one cannot possibly
464
know what a future Chamber might consider to be right. That is why I feel that the final argument of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, does not stand up.
In making these judgments one has to consider what a future Chamber might think it right to do. Those of us who have been in politics for a long time know that there are situations in which temptations and arguments are put up which are quite wrong; and one likes to feel that one is independently minded enough to stand up against them. I believe that I can say that I am independent minded and have stood up against arguments which I felt were wrong. In constitution-making, we have always to prepare for the worst and make the assumption that such things are possible. I can accept that these amendments may not: be correctly drafted, but this is an important issue that needs to be addressed and I hope that the Government will address it.
The Earl of Errol: Perhaps I may say quickly from these Benches that I am a little tired of hearing how all hereditary Peers sit on the Conservative Benches. They do not. A significant number of us sit on the Cross Benches and if one other party joined with the Cross Benches, we could defeat the Conservatives. That is a straight fact. They do not have an overall majority in this Chamber.
Having dealt with that matter, the real problem here—. the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was very ingenuous—is that this country does not have a constitutional court. We have no final long-stop. If the executive can gain control over everything, that is it. At the moment, for many members of the public and Members of your Lordships' Chamber, the only long-stop left is the hereditary Peers, inadequate as that may seem to many. If another Bill before Parliament: gave a different constitutional, irrevocable long-stop, I am sure that we would have no problem with the Bill going through at the moment. We are therefore attempting to put in other long-stops.
The 1949 Act has shown how it is possible to revoke certain provisions in other Acts. The 1911 Act contained certain protections. The 1949 Act shows that those protections can be overturned. In fact, the 1949 Act, as an example, could overturn Clause 7—the quinquennial Act provision—to reserve powers to the Lords under the 1911 Act. It therefore concerns me that whatever we pass now can actually be revoked. It does not matter what constitutional protections we put in; it can be revoked by a government and pushed through. That is what worries me.
As I said in my Second Reading speech, I am worried about who governs my grandchildren. I am not worried about going on sitting here; I am worried about the future. I find it very difficult when I listen to people of great and good intention who are honest, sincere and would do their duty—like the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Graham of Edmonton, whom I respect greatly; I know I can put great faith in them—who believe that they can trust a successor of either political colour. No one can guarantee that this interim House will not last for another 100 years. So these provisions will go on and we should try to think how we are going to put in

465
some constitutional safeguards and stop rejecting them out of hand. The only constitutional safeguards we have at the moment are the hereditary Peers unless we provide for a constitutional court in this Bill. If the Government wish to do that, let them come forward with it; I am sure we would all vote for it.
Viscount Cranborne: I am sure Members of the Committee will agree with me that we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and to my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry for putting forward, in the one case, his declaratory amendment, and in the other, his probing amendment.
The whole House seems to feel that the noble Earl merely reflects a statement of the case as it is. But we owe him a debt of gratitude because it is often forgotten—and had been forgotten until the reform of your Lordships' Chamber once again floated over the political horizon—that one of the most important and, we hope, permanently dormant—politically at least—powers of your Lordships' Chamber is its power under the 1911 Act to preserve the provisions of the quinquennial Act. For that reason, it seems to me that the declaratory amendment proposed by the noble Earl is a useful reminder, whether or not it is eventually incorporated into the Bill.
As far as concerns the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, I also think that we ought to be grateful. During the course of my noble friend's extraordinarily interesting analysis of his amendment I believe he made it clear that, if the provisions of the Quinquennial Act are to be preserved, the quality which matters most for your Lordships' House after the passage of the Bill is independence. It matters for virtually every other issue that this Chamber concerns itself with, such as the revision of legislation and its more day-to-day functions. However, by definition, this long-stop function matters more than anything else. Indeed, that independence is the crux of the argument which has flowed backwards and forwards across the Chamber this afternoon.
I believe it was my noble friend Lady Young who, wisely, observed during the course of her remarks that we should not legislate on the assumption that people of good will interpret the legislation. She said that we should legislate on the assumption that governments in particular will be tempted to act in certain ways. From my limited experience of governments, of all persuasions, I do not think that it is necessarily always ill will that tempts them; it is expediency. Above all, it is the feeling, which is perhaps natural in any government, that they are the embodiment of the instrument of doing what is right. They feel that there is a sort of moral obligation which enables them to become a little less scrupulous, especially after long periods in power, than perhaps a number of us would like to see. I hasten to add at this point that I am not referring to governments of any complexion in that remark.
However, I also think that it is especially important to consider now the question of the effect of legislation on governments who are driven, for whatever reason, to become unscrupulous. After all, we are not only living
466
in a period of very great constitutional change as far as concerns our own country; we are also living at a time when the existence of the nation state as the basic political building block within our planet is under challenge. As a conservative with a small -c"—and, of course, with a big "C"; but particularly with a small "c"—that is not a view to which I subscribe. But it is increasingly asserted that the day of the nation state is gone.
We must assume in this House and in the consideration of legislation that the nation state is something which will endure for the purposes of this Bill; and that safeguards affecting the nation state should continue to be incorporated. But if, for example, this view, which I deplore, were to become more prevalent I suspect that it would be increasingly easy to argue, if only for reasons of expediency, that constitutional safeguards which guarantee the continuance of the nation state, in the form that we understand it, should be undermined. Indeed, not only that they should be undermined but, also, in the modern global world in which we all live, that they represent something which does not particularly matter. After all, in international organisations there are great platonic guardians who know what is good for us better than we do.
Therefore, for all those reasons, I think it is extremely sensible for us to ensure that the preservation of the provisions of the Quinquennial Act is kept as the cornerstone of the functions of your Lordships' House, whether reformed or unreformed. As I said, I believe that my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry did us a service by drawing our attention to this so early in our proceedings. However, with the greatest respect, where I begin to part company with my noble friend is on the issue as to how sensible it is to imply that any group of people outside the membership of either House of Parliament should have a reserved constitutional role which acts as a sort of guardian for Parliament. Some people may say that, in due course, judges may have a say in that role. Again, this may betray my conservatism in every sense of the word, but I actually think that this is the sort of question which properly belongs in Parliament, especially in the upper House.
I believe that I have made clear during the past few weeks my reluctant conclusion that the day of the hereditary Peer is over, but I shall not rehearse those arguments again and risk boring noble Lords more than I usually do. Nevertheless, however much I may or may not deplore the departure of the hereditary peerage, I find it constitutionally odd that Parliament itself should not be trusted to perform one of its central functions in its control of government; and that Members of Parliament alone—particularly, in this instance, Members of your Lordships' House, whether reformed or unreformed—should not be trusted to maintain the provisions of the Quinquennial Act.
Having said that, that does not mean to say that I do not greatly sympathise with the very real problem identified by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. For reasons that I have tried to explain, I fear that we would be wise in this House to doubt the reliability of governments of any colour when put under enormous pressure and when they may feel that it is

467
expedient, for example, to change the provisions of the Quinquennial Act. One of the difficulties that any government would have with your Lordships' House in the form as at present proposed would be the sheer mechanics of flooding this Chamber with enough people to win a vote. With a very large number of Peers allowed to sit and vote, the number of peerages which would have to be created in order to overcome an inbuilt majority against the Government for a Motion of the kind that we are envisaging would present difficult mechanical problems, especially if it had to be accomplished in a hurry. But that, in itself, is a safeguard.
I suspect that that safeguard will, by definition, be somewhat eroded with the very much smaller House that we will see, even though the Government have told us that they intend to maintain broad parity with the Conservative Party alone and not seek an overall majority in your Lordships' House. Under the very severe circumstances which might lead to a proposal for the overturning of the Quinquennial Act, I suspect that a government would not be too inhibited by that undertaking.
I should tell my noble friend that I do have a difficulty with the solution that he proposes to the problem that he has identified. However, that does not mean to say that I do not think that he is absolutely right in his view that the problem does exist. If the Government agree with me that the way my noble friend has suggested for dealing with this problem is perhaps not the ideal one, I wonder whether they could give us an reassurance that perhaps some thought might be given as to how his difficulty might be addressed. One way he suggested was a fixed Parliament. If I may say so with the greatest respect to him, that is one of the oldest chestnuts in British constitutional history. That is one possibility.
Another one, which may be more easily achieved during the passage of the present Bill, is a maximum number for the membership of your Lordships' House, which, again, would help a little to ease the difficulty of swamping your Lordships with new creations. That is another thought that I leave in the Committee's mind as a possibility.
However, whichever way we jump, we are presented with a difficulty throughout this Bill. My noble friend Lord Waddington, who is not present, has identified that difficulty with increasing passion as our debates have progressed; namely, that we are presented with a Bill which is only half a reform. Time and again we come back to the practical difficulty; namely, that as much as we love and admire and believe the Government, in the end we are forced to take on trust the fact that they will proceed to stage two, which will incorporate all the guarantees that we all want and which, by definition, are being eroded in this present Bill.
I recognise—as your Lordships have perhaps criticised me for recognising in the past—that the Government are in an extremely powerful position and that the compromise which we shall debate in a couple of weeks' time is perhaps the least bad option. However, it would be some comfort at least for those of us who
468
agree with the old French saw that, "ce n'est rien que le provisoire qui dure" to know that some of the guarantees—in particular the matter raised by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry this afternoon—might be incorporated in this Bill in case the temporary lasts longer than some of us would like.
The Earl of Erroll: Before the noble Viscount sits down I wish to ask him one question. He said that it was the role of Parliament to decide these matters. Why was it then that the British Parliament in deciding the bicameral constitutions of the Dominions still reserved the right that constitutional change had to be ratified by this House?
Viscount Cranborne: I realise that the noble Earl is a great deal more knowledgeable than I about the history of the constitutions of Commonwealth Parliaments. My sense of the development of the Commonwealth in the past few decades is that increasingly Commonwealth countries have taken from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and indeed from the British Parliament. powers which they have drawn into the bosom of their own Parliaments. I suspect from some of the newspaper reports that I have read in the past few clays—I believe I read something of the kind in connection with Trinidad this morning—that the remaining vestiges of the connections may indeed be on the way out. I suspect—I refer to those of us who believe that the nation state will endure—that those of us who distrust the reliability of international organisations will find this a rather reassuring development.
Viscount Bledisloe: Even assuming that there is the theoretical problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, I find the solution proposed by his amendment remarkable. Let us assume that stage two does not come upon us very quickly, if at all, and that in, say, seven years' time a Minister of the Crown introduces a Bill and it is suggested that that restricts the powers of the Crown—let us say, to select the Prime Minister. Is it really contemplated that upon that day seven years hence, all those then qualified for hereditary Peerage, the heirs of many of the persons presently in your Lordships' House—some of whom will by definition never have been here—all 700 of them, shall then be entitled to apply for 'Writs of Summons, shall queue up to take their oath, shall make their maiden speeches (all 700 of them) before they can take part in proceedings on the Bill? That is riot just a matter of dusting down elderly Peers who have been put out to grass for seven years; it is a question of unwrapping from their nappies their successors who have never been to this place and who have no idea how it works, and suddenly conferring upon them a power to take part in the activities of one Bill, because it is an important Bill, and then sending them back either to their dusty shelves or to their nappies. It is an amazing solution.
Lord Eden of Winton: One of the great assets and great strengths of the Chamber which many Members of the Committee have commented upon, most notably my noble friend Lord Cranborne, is the independence

469
of judgment exercised by individual Members. Since I have been here I have had the opportunity to witness that on many occasions. I must admit that when I was a Member of the other place it was much more difficult to exercise that degree of independence of mind, thought and action. However, in this place it has been easy to do so. I shall exercise my independence of judgment this afternoon, should either of the noble Lords who have moved amendments press them in any shape or form to a Division. However, I would not feel able to support that of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. I say that with great regret because I have the greatest regard for him.
Nonetheless, I would find it most valuable to have something like the declaratory amendment put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, included on the face of the Bill. That would be a safeguard and a reassurance. I emphasise the word "reassurance" and in doing so I look straight at the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and say to him that I understand perfectly well why he felt a little upset. I do not think he was "steamed up" because in the past I have seen him get steamed up and I know what happens when he does. He certainly was not steamed up this afternoon. Nonetheless he made a perfectly valid point; namely, that there is nothing to choose, when it is a matter of independence of judgment and of a willingness and readiness to protect the constitution, between hereditary Peers and life, appointed Peers. I fully accept that.
However, what this Bill is about—as, again, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, took the opportunity to emphasise—is the composition of the Chamber. We are engaged in a process which will lead to a changed House of Lords. It will not be the same as it is now. By changing the composition you inevitably change the nature of the Chamber. I suspect—but I do not know this any more than any other noble Lord does at present—that the nature of the Chamber will change by virtue of the appointments that will be made to make up its number. It will become a different place. It will become largely peopled by new-entry Members who owe their allegiance to the source of that appointment. Inevitably there will be an erosion of the degree of independence of judgment which, by virtue of the mix of hereditary and life Peers that we have at the present time, this Chamber has been able to enjoy, and which it has honoured. Therefore I believe that we are in danger of having a less independent, judgmental forum in the future than that which we have today.
I ally that possibility in my mind with the reality of another place with a substantial majority, and with a government determined to exercise their power and who have already shown that they have comparatively little regard for parliamentary institutions. Therefore, I think it is all the more important that we do everything we can to safeguard those elements of the constitution which may in future be under attack by an over-mighty government with an over-large majority in the other place when this Chamber has changed its composition altogether. For that reason I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
470
I hope that I am right in feeling encouraged that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who has evidently written a very fulsome letter to the noble Earl, will be able to give firm reassurances from the Dispatch Box and, more importantly, that he will seek to enshrine words to the effect of the declaratory Motion, if not in the Bill then in any future legislation affecting the powers of the House.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Acton: Before the noble Lord sits down, surely he does not believe that the 120 Cross-Bench life Peers owe their allegiance to whichever Prime Minister was responsible for them coming here?
Lord Eden of Winton: The noble Lord is quite correct, I do not.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not believe that it will unduly grieve or shock my noble friends sitting in front of me when I say that it is quite a long time since I would have admitted to the description of being an ardent party politician. Indeed, my regard for political parties generally has diminished sharply over recent years. I hasten to add that that does not alter or diminish the respect I have for my noble friends who are sitting in front of me.
The speech of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, from the Cross Benches gave me particular pleasure. I regard the Cross Benches of your Lordships' House as unique. Noble Lords who sit on the Cross Benches come here without any party ties at all. That is not repeated anywhere in the world. I hope that whatever replaces your Lordships' House will somehow perform the miracle of preserving a collection of people who are uncontaminated by party allegiance.
I quite understand the difficulty and the hostility that the Labour Party has felt for many years at finding itself facing a permanently entrenched majority of Conservatives in the House. I find it exceedingly difficult that we somehow get blamed—as we were by the noble Lord, Lord Graham—for wishing to compare the respective merits of hereditary and life Peers. That is totally irrelevant to the issue. Everyone wants to have good people in the House who will look after the interests of the nation. To indulge in that kind of comparison is very unhelpful indeed.
I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Richard. No one can be more fairly attributed the characteristic of Olympian calm. The noble Lord achieved a unique performance. He always speaks entertainingly and interestingly, but on this occasion he somehow managed to couple his usual Olympian calm with words of anger. The words did not seem to be coming from someone who felt that emotion. Although the noble Lord was very impressive in one way, I think he had a very odd combination of manner and substance.
My noble friend Lord Renton will correct me if I am wrong, but I never heard him say that the only way in which to defend the constitution was the preservation for ever of hereditary Peers. If I am not right, my noble friend will doubtless interrupt me. That was the basis of the charge. If the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is going to

471
doubt people because of what appears on the Marshalled List, that will lead to some very odd conclusions. No one knows that better than the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who, after all, has been Leader of the House.
The difficulty throughout the Bill has been that we are discussing a one-legged affair; it hops along; it does not progress in an orderly fashion. I am irritated when I look at the Front Bench opposite and again and again one sees the unreceptive faces of noble Lords who cannot understand any point of view other than their own. I did not come here to make those kind of remarks. I was in a happy, calm mood. It is amazing the power that people on Front Benches have to upset me. They must practise; they have such skill. I see no sign of them even trying to understand what we mean or our real concern that we do not know what the future holds. I am a very reluctant believer in the goodness and common sense of governments. My experience of nearly half a century is that governments do not deserve any tribute of that kind. Goodness is very far from them and common sense often flies away from them.
I hope that the Government Front Bench will at least listen with respect to noble Lords who are not trying to filibuster or to put only the point of view of their party, but who feel very worried indeed about not knowing what will replace your Lordships' House. They are worried that we could end up with a House which, far from being permanent, will be a storm centre for many years to come.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I think I detected a wave of sympathy from the Government Front Bench when the noble Earl, Lord Perth, spoke to his declaratory amendment. I was very glad to hear that because I think a declaratory amendment will help. But I, for one, do not feel that a declaratory amendment alone will do the trick on this issue.
I echo the words of other noble Lords who have said that perhaps the solution to the problem enunciated by my noble friend Lord Renton is the right one. He enunciated a very important problem—a problem which exists because we do not know how the House will be constituted as time goes on. We do not know how many Cross-Benchers there will be; we do not know what the House will look like as time goes on if stage one lasts for a long time. When the Government Chief Whip replies I hope that he will be able to give us an assurance that the Government are looking at the problem enunciated in Amendment No.25. If he does not do so, I am sure that other noble Lords will seek to ensure that an amendment will be made to the Bill to confront this problem.
Lord Strathclyde: I should like to begin by agreeing entirely with my noble friend Lady Young who said that this is one of the most important issues that we have had to address during the course of the passage of the Bill. Not only is it important, but it also deals with one of the most sensitive areas of the constitution.
I am interested in finding the solution to the problem raised by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. The Parliament Acts have restricted the delaying power of the House of Lords over government Bills, but they
472
have, however, specifically and deliberately left untouched the absolute power of the House of Lords to reject outright any Bill to extend the life of Parliament. It is widely known that many dictatorships have been democratically elected and then entrench themselves by altering the constitution, and the 20th century has a number of disturbing examples. That is not in question in our country at this time. Although it is easy to reject the proposition as fanciful—I think it probably is—it has happened in the past in England, as my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry reminded us, in the 17th century, at a time of constitutional crisis and civil strife. It has happened in many other countries. That is why the constitutional protection is there—not because of what we think will happen but because of what is unlikely but could nevertheless happen in theory.
A sound constitution will provide against these dangers. In recent centuries, ours has most certainly done so. So what will happen after the Bill goes through without an amendment of this kind? We will have a second Chamber with the formal powers still to veto the extension of a Parliament, but the Prime Minister of the day will have the power to nominate a majority in that Chamber and the same Government could therefore present a Bill to extend its life and ensure a majority for the Bill's passage in the Lords. That is the. fundamental point.
We have been told many times that the Bill is about removing the hereditary Peers. That is only part of the. purpose of the Bill. The other part is that the Bill creates an interim House. So we should consider how that interim House will operate. The composition of this House will be decided by another place, most notably by the Prime Minister.
My noble friend has put forward a proposal which allows the hereditary Peers to be brought: back in, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, described, from their dotage or from their nappies in order to deal with this issue. I agree with my noble friend Lord Cranborne that that is almost certainly not the best way of dealing with this problem. I should like to put this point to the Government: do they accept that there is an issue here and a problem that needs to be resolved? This is not an issue that needs to be resolved just because a Labour Government are in place. But do they accept that, for the long term consequences of the Bill, some kind of new safeguard needs to be introduced in this House to deal with the issue that was raised by my noble friend?
We are told by the Government—we have to accept it—that this is a stand alone Bill. There are no guarantees that we will go forward to a stage two. Noble Lords opposite have set up a Royal Commission to look at the future, but there are no guarantees that the Royal Commission's recommendations will be accepted; nor do I think there could be. So we have to deal on the basis that what is proposed in the Bill could stay with us for a very long time.
A number of other suggestions have been made by noble Lords today. There is the possibility of introducing a maximum number of Peers in this House. There is also another option. It is an option which the Government have found for themselves in relation to the

473
Scotland Act passed last Session. In the Scotland Act the Government took the decision that there should be a qualified majority on constitutional issues. The Government obviously considered that option for the Scotland Act and decided to put it into place. I just wonder whether the noble Lord who is to reply can tell us whether that would be an acceptable solution to this problem.
As I said, I am not convinced that my noble friend has proposed the best way of maintaining the guarantee that currently exists and I very much hope that his amendment is not pressed today. But he has offered one solution. A voting threshold or a maximum number of Peers in the House are other ways. What we cannot have is no way of dealing with this problem. I look to the Government to impress us with their thinking and to give firm assurances that they will either join us or come forward with their own amendments at a later stage.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before the noble Lord, Lord Carter, rises to reply, I think I should point out that the situation is a little more serious than was outlined by my noble friends Lord Renton of Mount Harry, Lord Eden, Lord Strathclyde, and others. I say that because it is very unlike them, but the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Graham of Edmonton, appear to have forgotten the Labour manifesto. Indeed, no noble Lord has mentioned the Labour manifesto. I suppose we can forgive the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for not being entirely familiar with that document, but I am very surprised at noble Lords opposite who have opposed the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton.
I say that because the Labour manifesto clearly said that the Government would in future appoint Peers to reflect more closely the proportion of votes cast in the previous general election. That must mean that if that part of the manifesto, to which we notice the Government are very committed, is carried through, a future House of Lords will be more sympathetic to and reflective of the government of the day. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord who is to reply to the amendment would deal with that very real problem.
Lord Carter: We have certainly had a very interesting debate and an interesting historical and constitutional journey. In replying to Amendment No.25, I shall speak also to Amendment No.106 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
The purpose of the amendments is to give hereditary Peers a continuing role as guardians of the constitution against the executive. That is a paraphrase. The clause has the effect of allowing the hereditary Peers to speak and vote on any public Bill which would extend the life of a Parliament or any public Bill which would restrict the constitutional powers of the Crown. Although hereditary Peers would cease to be members of the House of Lords, they would apparently be eligible to return to take part in proceedings on those two types of measure. There is no indication in the clause as to whether Writs of Summons would be needed for that
474
purpose or whether they could simply turn up. The clause also contains no indication of the type of legislation to which paragraph (b) refers.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, seeks to allow the hereditary Peers to return to the House to vote in two circumstances. One is clearly defined and one is extremely vague. As I understand the noble Lord's amendment, it stems from two anxieties. The first is that this or a future government intend to subvert the constitution of this country; the second is that life Peers are not to be trusted to stop them. I have to tell the Committee that neither proposition has any basis in fact.
When I listen to these fears being expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Crickhowell, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and others, I just wonder whether noble Lords raised such concerns about the power of the executive and so on when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Prime Minister with a very substantial majority in the other House. Perhaps they did. Indeed, at that time, despite the in-built majority of hereditary Peers, that Conservative government created twice as many Conservative life Peers as Labour life Peers. I just wonder whether there was any protest at the time and whether any concern was expressed about the constitutional dangers that might come about.
Perhaps I may deal immediately with the point about the intentions of the Labour Government. I know that noble Lords opposite do not like hearing quotations from our manifesto. We have stated that,
"We are committed to maintaining an independent cross-bench presence of life peers. No one political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords".
We have also said that in a transitional House we wish to seek only broad parity with the Conservative Opposition and a substantial presence of independent and Cross-Bench Peers. That could not be clearer. What is interesting—
Viscount Cranborne: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord when he is in full flow. What makes the noble Lord think that it would be possible for this Government's statement of intention, not even expressed in legislation, to bind subsequent governments?
Lord Carter: No Parliament can bind its successor. I shall return to that point; it is central to the argument.
On the general point, the proposals for reform of the House of Lords have produced a veritable upsurge and an interest in constitutional change and in novel constitutional ideas: fixed term Parliaments; constitutional safeguards; the proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for reform of the other place. As I said in an earlier debate on this subject, the thought process of the Conservative Party in this area owes rather more to Rip van Winkel than to Socrates.
The constitutional safeguard that we have now is not the presence of hereditary Peers in this House. It is the Septennial Act as amended by the Parliament Act. I shall return to that point in replying to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Perth.

475
There could be a valuable role for a reformed House of Lords in relation to constitutional issues. I shall not be in the least surprised if a large proportion of the evidence given to the Royal Commission under the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, does not make suggestions on the role that a reformed House could play in constitutional issues. This Bill does not deal with that point. It is one to which I shall return.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is always introducing us to new ideas. He had a new theory. He seemed to say that the majority of Conservative hereditary Peers had Labour hereditary Peers as their fathers. That is an extraordinary tribute to the fertility of the previous Labour generation, given the number of Conservative Peers in this House.
The noble Earl referred to the idea that the new House will be an appointed Chamber. This House is an appointed Chamber. It is appointed by eight successive Prime Ministers in the case of life Peers; and in the case of hereditary Peers, by their genes. It is also implied that Conservative hereditary Peers are the only people available to safeguard the constitution. We do not accept that.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart referred to defects in the drafting of the amendment.
The Earl of Erroll: Perhaps I may correct the noble Lord: I believe it was all hereditary Peers, not merely Conservatives. There are a large number of us on the Cross-Benches.
Lord Carter: I accept the correction.
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said that the presence of all hereditary Peers represents the only longstop. He wanted some form of safeguard which could not be changed in the future.
It is the heart of our constitution that no Parliament can bind a successor Parliament. That is absolutely central.
The Earl of Erroll: I said that it was an inadequate safeguard for the present. I suggested that an irrevocable constitutional court might be better.
Lord Carter: That is an alternative. The constitution as it presently stands is absolutely clear that no Parliament can bind its successor.
Turning to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, we shall provide all the assurances that we can regarding the intentions of the Government as regards the Septennial Act.
The Government have made it clear that in the transitional House no party should seek a majority in the reformed House. We have committed ourselves to seek only broad parity with the main Opposition party. There will still be a substantial Cross-Bench presence. The majority of Members at any time will not have been appointed by the present government. Existing life Peers have been appointed by eight Prime Ministers over 40 years. So the fears expressed by noble Lords are unfounded.
476
The idea of fixed term Parliaments is one that has been advanced over many years. It would be a major change to move to fixed term Parliaments at Westminster. Our parliamentary system depends on the executive commanding the confidence of Parliament in the other place and at the discretion, in appropriate circumstances, of the Prime Minister to seek the dissolution of Parliament for a general election. There are possible arguments for changing that, but they do not arise from the Bill. It does not change the powers and privileges of the executive, the Commons or the Lords. I should also point out that an Act introducing a fixed term Parliament could be overturned by the same elective dictatorship which it is feared will remove the safeguards of the quinquennial Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, seemed to fear that in future that we should be in the hands of a dictatorship. The noble Lord said that "only at this time' was he happy about the situation. He also agreed that to bring back the hereditary Peers as the constitutional safeguard was not the best way to deal with the issues that have been raised.
The noble Lord said that there is no guarantee in regard to stage two. There is a safeguard. We have made clear that, if this House accepts the Weatherill amendment, stage two is required to fulfil our manifesto commitment to remove the hereditary peerage. We have made that absolutely clear. The noble Lord referred to the possibility of a blocking majority on constitutional issues. I cannot accept it on behalf of the Government on the hoof in debate, but it is certainly an interesting idea and one that could possibly be put to the Roy al Commission in relation to the final stage of a reformed House.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may intervene. The problem that we are talking about will riot be resolved by the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission will be examining proposals to take this House from its interim stage to full reform. The problem that will arise immediately this Bill is on the statute book relates to the interim House. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider that point.
Lord Carter: We have explained that in the interim House no one party will have an overall majority.
Lord Strathclyde: If that is the case, will the noble Lord accept an amendment to the Bill that makes that clear?
Lord Carter: It is not necessary. We have already said so.
The Earl of Erroll: How can the noble Lord bind a successor Parliament with that assurance?
Lord Carter: I cannot; nor does the Bill—or indeed any Bill. No Parliament can bind its successor. 'We have made the position absolutely clear. If noble Lords do not believe us, we can only give our word and the word of the Prime Minister.
Viscount Cranborne: I apologise for yet again interrupting the noble Lord. Will he not accept that an

477
assurance, even from him—and this House has learnt from the beginning of the noble Lord's career to accept his assurances as carrying great authority, given in total good faith—would be less easy to overturn if it were embodied in legislation for a subsequent Parliament?
6 p.m.
Lord Carter: The assurance is not only from me; it comes from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has made our intention absolutely clear. It is to seek—unlike what we could seek based on the results of the last election—only broad parity with the major Opposition party in the transitional House and perhaps also in the finally reformed House; that the Government will never command a majority in this House. It is a familiar situation for Labour Chief Whips. That is what we have said, and we intend to stand by our word.
Turning to the substance of sub-paragraph (a) of the noble Lord's amendment, I assure the Committee that the Government have no intention of bringing forward legislation to alter the maximum life of a Parliament. We are quite prepared to face the electorate on our record at the end of this present Parliament; as, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was in 1987, when his party commanded a massive majority in both Houses. We never dreamed of accusing Members opposite of wishing to take advantage of that majority to subvert the constitution. If anxieties on that score lie at the heart of the noble Lord's amendment, they are unfounded.
I am not at all clear as to the aim of sub-paragraph (b) of the amendment, dealing with the powers of the Crown. I assume that it relates to any attempt to reduce the powers of the monarchy. But it is by no means certain that it can be construed as narrowly as that. For example, would a Bill that attempted to reduce the powers of the executive also fall within the ambit of this sub-paragraph because of the Royal Prerogative. It offers scope for endless argument as to whether or not the provision of the sub-paragraph has been triggered.
I am not sure whether we are intended to take seriously the second proposition that apparently lies behind the noble Lord's proposals; namely, that life Peers are not to be trusted with the constitution of this country. As a life Peer himself, I am sure that the noble Lord believes himself to be eminently trustworthy in that respect. Why should he or we think any less of our fellow life Peers? Yet that appears to be the burden of his remarks. No doubt he assumes that this Bill will last much longer than we intend. We have heard the fears expressed that apparently there will be ample time for the present Prime Minister, who in the meantime will have won several elections without the help of suspension of the Septennial Act, to pack this House with poodles—to quote one expression we have heard—before he moves in for the kill. At that point, 20 to 25 years hence, the hereditary Peers will be asked to ride to the rescue. Presumably, by that time several hundred hereditary Peers will never have been Members of this House.
478
The noble Lords opposite cannot have it both ways. Either they believe that this Government can remain in power for many years without cheating or that the present Prime Minister, or a future one, in defiance of everything that has been said about not seeking a majority in this House, will immediately add some 500 life Peers to it. Or perhaps they believe that the present Members of your Lordships' House—the life Peers—are not to be trusted. I shall be delighted if he is right in the first proposition that there will be a Labour government for 25 years. I and my noble friends are rather insulted by the last two propositions regarding life Peers.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I assure the Committee that the Bill has no impact on the provision whereby the Septennial Act, as amended by the Parliament Act 1911, is excluded from the operation of the latter. Amendments to the Septennial Act will therefore continue to need the consent of this House. I have already written to the noble Earl to explain this to him. We cannot amend that provision by sleight of hand; we would have to do it openly. We have not done so; nor do we have any such intention. I am happy to take this further opportunity to put that on record by quoting from the letter that I wrote to the noble Earl, a copy of which I shall place in the Library:
"You asked me to confirm whether the House of Lords Bill was watertight in leaving intact the powers of this House to block any move by another place to extend the life of a Parliament. I am pleased to confirm that this is the case".
I then quote the words of the Act. The letter goes on:
"In order to apply the Parliament Acts to a Bill to extend the life of a Parliament, and thus to take away the important constitutional right which this House has, it would he necessary for the House of Lords Bill, or some other legislation. to amend section 2(1) of the Parliament Act 1911. It is clear from the text of the House of Lords Bill that no such amendment is envisaged. I do hope that this will set your mind at rest. My colleagues on the Front Bench and I would, however, be willing to give as many assurances as are necessary to this effect on the Floor of the House so that the Government's intentions in this area are quite clear".
I pick up one other point raised by the noble Earl about the wording of an Act. Since the judgment in Pepper v. Hart it is open to the courts to consider what is said in Parliament as evidence of intention. What I have just said is evidence of the fact that the Government have no intention of changing the Septennial Act.
As to the more general question of the effect of this Bill on the powers of this House, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Richard, we debated this matter last week in the context of an amendment moved by the Official Opposition. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn made it clear that there is nothing in the Bill that affects the powers of this House; nor is there any intention to do so. He explained then with his usual eloquence why amendments to say that the Bill did not do what it did not do, and was never intended to do, were irrelevant. The noble Earl was concerned about a particular issue. I hope that I have answered the point and that he and other noble Lords who have raised concerns will not feel it necessary to pursue either the general or particular matter any further.

479
We have had an interesting debate in which I have tried to make the Government's position entirely clear. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, does not appear to believe that. Is that the case?
Lord Strathclyde: I found the case made by the noble Lord strangely unconvincing. The problem is not the assurances of the current Government on the Septennial or quinquennial Acts, which I wholly accept. The point is that we are creating an interim House, the composition of which is in the hands of the Prime Minister. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, shakes his head. Therefore, I would be delighted if he accepted an amendment tabled by us to ensure that that was not so. To return to the point, the composition of the interim House will be in the hands of the Prime Minister. This Prime Minister, on whose behalf the Government Chief Whip has given certain assurances, may not last for very long. It is possible that he will last for a very long time, but the Bill may last for longer. We ask that an amendment be made to the Bill to deal with a problem. My preferred solution is that there be a qualified majority of this House. In that way the House of Commons cannot override the wishes of this House by a simple majority here because they have packed the House with their own cronies, to use common parlance.
Lord Carter: There is an extremely simple answer to the point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The Prime Minister has given an assurance which the noble Lord says he accepts. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Prime Minister lasts at least until the end of this Parliament. If we amended the Bill any successor Parliament could change it. Therefore, one has an assurance. In practical terms we all know what will happen if the Bill becomes law at the end of this Session, as we hope: there will be a transitional House. The sole intention is to achieve broad parity with the Opposition.
This Prime Minister has taken fewer powers than any previous one by handing over the choice of independent Members to an independent appointments commission. Noble Lords opposite are aware of the Government's proposals about the creation of an independent appointments commission to handle the appointment of independent Peers. This Prime Minister, unlike previous Conservative and even Labour ones, has reduced the power of patronage. We cannot say any more than that when the Bill becomes law—I am aware that I am repeating myself—we seek no more than broad parity with the main Opposition party. All of us can work out the figures. We believe that the Government in this House will never command a majority. It will require an overwhelming majority in this House of all the parties together—the Cross-Benchers, the Conservative Opposition and the Liberals—to defeat the Government. That is the only way that a change can be achieved.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Earlier he said that no government or Parliament could bind their successor. He has just said that the guarantee (if I may put it that way) of the independence of this House in future will lie in the
480
decision of the Prime Minister to forgo his own power of appointment to this House in favour of an appointments commission. Who will appoint that body?
Lord Carter: They are the usual arrangements, all of which have been discussed already. I hope that I am not being offensive if I say that noble Lords opposite are extremely slow learners. We debated this matter for 40 hours before we had the two-day debate on Second Reading. All of this has been explored many times and we have clearly spelt out our intentions. I do not believe that any government could have spelt out more clearly our intentions in relation to this House. The proposal is that in the transitional House there will be an independent appointments commission appointed in the same way as an independent non-departmental public body. Noble Lords must start to believe, first, that we mean what we say and, secondly, that we are telling the truth.
Earl Ferrers: With great respect, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, cannot get away with that. He stated that we had to believe everything that had been said. The Prime Minister had said this and the Government had said that and therefore it would happen. Whether or not one likes it, the Government are altering the constitution. They may be altering it for the better or the worse. You cannot get hold of the constitution and shake it like a Christmas tree and not expect something to fall off. It is perfectly possible for something to go wrong. It is perfectly possible for things to happen which no one expects.
Perhaps I may have the Minister's attention, even when he is being advised by such a learned person as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I am sure that the noble Lord will have benefited greatly from the advice he has received, if he is able to remember what it was. I was asking whether the Minister will be good enough to listen to what I am saying, even though he was being interrupted, I am sure quite rightly.
The Minister said that we have to believe what the Prime Minister said. I am sure that the Prime Minister may mean that. But Prime Ministers come and go--sometimes unexpectedly. If one is altering the constitution one must take care of every eventuality. One could have a situation where the House of Lords is an appointed Chamber—that is what it will be—and the House of Commons has a certain majority and therefore pushes its view through both the appointed Chamber and the elected Chamber. In order to ensure that such an eventuality does not happen, we ask for some safeguards.
What worries me, and probably worries my noble friends, is that the Government may wish to provide for that but they have the blank look of not being prepared to listen and to consider that there might be a scintilla of argument. I am sure that their brief is, probably from the Prime Minister too, that there shall be no amendments to the Bill, whatever the argument. But there is an argument. There is a matter of concern. It is not a question of hereditary Peers versus life Peers. I just wish that all four noble Lords on the Government Front Bench would admit sometimes that there might be an argument to be addressed.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: I am a little confused by what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, meant when he said that the Government seek broad parity. I understand that we shall go through stage one. Does he mean that they would then seek broad parity in the intermediate House? If so, we have grounds for fear. We would have no control whatsoever over the Government's definition of parity. Would it mean parity with another place—with numbers on Government and Opposition Benches in another place—or in this House?
Lord Carter: I am trying to put the issue as simply as I can. If there are 100 Conservatives in the transitional House, we would seek 100 Labour Peers. That is broad parity. It means equality with the official Opposition. Is that clear? If there were 200 Conservatives, the figure would be 200. It is broad parity. If noble Lords want the figures, as Chief Whip I have them in my head. At present we do not have broad parity with life Peers. We are still about 15 short. I leave that point with Members of the Committee. If the Weatherill amendment were accepted the Conservatives would still have more Peers than Labour. Over time we should see broad parity: that is, equality with the number of Conservative Peers.
Lord Rotherwick: That is the whole point about seeking broad parity. If the noble Lord told us now that all the Government seek is to have 100 Peers on the Government side and 100 Peers on the Opposition side, why cannot there be an amendment to give us comfort that that is what will happen?
All the noble Lord gives us is a deep suspicion that when the time comes the Government will not do what he suggests they will. As with the debate yesterday on Welsh beef on the bone, the Government had good intent last year but when it comes to the crunch things change. Why cannot the Government give us the assurance, the comfort, which would allow us to go away happy?
Lord Carter: We intend noble Lords to go away, but whether or not happy is another matter.
I make the point clear. We have made our intentions entirely clear. I do not think that we could have made them clearer. Either noble Lords believe us or they do not. I would willingly give way to any noble Lord opposite who had raised any of these fears with previous Conservative Prime Ministers who could have flooded this House. Mr. Blair can flood this House with Labour Peers today. He chose not to do so.
We have brought forward a constitutional Bill. We have given assurances. I have repeated them. Either noble Lords accept them or they do not. If they do not do so, I can do nothing about it.
Viscount Torrington: Can the noble Lord explain what would happen in a coalition? It has been known before in British politics. If there is, for some reason or another, an alliance between the Tory Party and
482
the Liberal Democrat Party, will the Government immediately seek a large number of additional Peers? Perhaps he will explain the process.
Lord Carter: This gets more and more like the "Monty Python Show".
Broad parity with the Official Opposition means that the Government (the Labour Party) in this House over time will see the same number of Peers as the Official Opposition. There will be an Official Opposition in this House even in the case of a coalition. That is all we seek.
I do not think that I can put it any more clearly. I do not think that there is much point in continuing the debate on this issue. I have made it absolutely clear. I repeat: I shall give way to any noble Lord opposite who once raised these fears with any Conservative Prime Minister who could have flooded this House. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, certainly tried to do so, with twice as many Conservative life Peers as Labour life Peers despite the substantial number of Conservative hereditary Peers. Did anyone on the Benches opposite ever express concern? No.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I seek to get away from trying to flood the House with anything.
Perhaps I may respectfully ask two questions. I am sure the noble Lord realises that there is a problem. How to deal with it is, frankly, not so easy. However, as he approaches the problem, will the noble Lord make two assumptions: first, that the so-called Weatherill amendment is not carried in this House; and, secondly, that we do not go to stage two? I do not say what will happen on either. I ask the noble Lord to make those assumptions when dealing with the problem which he realises exists.
I realise that it is a difficult problem. I should be grateful if he could deal with the question on those assumptions.
Lord Carter: With all his years of experience in this Chamber, the noble Lord will know that Ministers do not answer hypothetical questions.
If the Weatherill amendment is not carried, this House will consist of a Chamber of life Peers without the 92 hereditary Peers. As I said, we are already 15 short in terms of life Peers. I cannot give the noble Lord any more assurance than that.
Lord Eden of Winton: I hope that I am not interrupting the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I believe that he had finished. I wished to be assured of that. Nonetheless, I hope that he will be tempted to rise again to his feet.
I wish to press one point. I am sure that the Committee is grateful for the assurances he gave to the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I am equally certain that all noble Lords will recognise the generosity and sincerity with which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, expressed those views.

483
Equally, I accept the point he made that although these matters may not be enshrined on the face of the Act, in the event of any dispute or question arising on the matter, the observations of the Minister on behalf of the Government made formally and officially at the Dispatch Box will be taken into account and carry weight. I accept all those matters fully from what he said. I ask only that he returns to the small point I made to which I attach some importance. I believe that the declaratory amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, should be the subject of an undertaking by the Government now. I know the noble Lord explained that the Government cannot bind any future, successor government. However, a marker should be put down now so that the present Government, when they bring forward legislation for stage two, as I assume they will, will incude a reference to the declaratory statement on the face of whatever Bill is put forward at that time.
Taking the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that Bill will certainly deal with the powers of this place. Therefore, in the light of this debate, which the two noble Lords who tabled amendments have made possible, I repeat that a firm marker should be put down by the government spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
Lord Carter: If I can find it, I shall quote from the letter. It says,
"the government has no intention of amending the Septennial Act".
I believe that everybody understands that. There is no intention to amend the Septennial Act.
A number of noble Lords have commented on the Government binding a successor government. It is a Parliament that binds a successor Parliament. I can give the noble Lord an absolute assurance that in this Parliament this Government have no intention of bringing forward amendments to amend the Septennial Act. That is the only assurance that any Minister can give in this Parliament. That is absolutely correct.
Equally, I can be confident that in the future there will be no intention to try to amend the Septennial Act to extend the life of Parliament. That is my view. The only assurance that I can give your Lordships as a Minister is that this Government, in this Parliament—it is the only one with which we are concerned—will not bring forward an amendment to the Septennial Act to extend the life of Parliament.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: The Government Chief Whip has used some honest words: that he can give no assurance that a future government will not attempt to amend the Septennial Act. That lies at the heart of our problem.
Lord Carter: Any successor Parliament. Noble Lords keep saying "successor government". It is any successor Parliament.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: The Minister is playing with words at the moment.
Lord Carter: The distinction is enormously important. This refers to the powers of the Government
484
and the powers of Parliament in the second House—in the transitional House—where the Government do not have a majority.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I congratulate the Government Chief Whip on saying that because he has pointed to the heart of the difficulty of this debate. I am delighted that my amendment has provoked such a lengthy and serious conversation about constitutional safeguards. The words used by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell are, I believe, at the heart of the matter. It is not a question of wishing, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, to dust off hereditary Peers and bring them out of the cupboard, which was an amusing but facetious remark on his part.
The question is: how can we find a constitutional safeguard in the interim stage, when, as the Government Chief Whip says, he can bind only this Government in this Parliament? The interim solution will disappear in the next Parliament. How can we writ e in a constitutional safeguard that has some chance of lasting longer than that? After all, an amendment to abolish only 16 words from the Parliament Act 1911 would mean that the absolute veto on Bills to extend the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years would disappear. It is extremely easy to do.
I believe that the Government Chief Whip was wrong when he said, in winding up, that we in some way wish to accuse the Government of subverting the constitution. That is not right. The constitution changes all the time. However, that is why we wish to see whether a constitutional safeguard that is satisfactory to all sides can be written in.
I was particularly pleased by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, on this subject, sitting as he does on the Cross Benches. He made the point about what other means can be found to find a safeguard if that in my amendment is not considered satisfactory.
I am grateful for the lengthy debate that we have had. I shall consider the wording of my amendment. Telling me that it is incorrectly drafted is, of course, the oldest trick in the world. However, I shall go away and consider it carefully with a view to redrafting. I hope that we shall be able to return to the matter on Report.
Perhaps I may say, without sounding pompous, that at that stage I hope that the Leader of the House herself will consider answering the debate. It touches on serious constitutional matters. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde spoke from the Front Bench on this side, I believe it deserves the attention of the Leader of the House herself. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.26 and 27 not moved.]
Lord Gray Lord Gray moved Amendment No.28:
Page I, line 6, at end insert—
("(2) This section does not apply to any person who was on 31st July 1963 the holder of a peerage in the peerage of Scotland only and who on that day became eligible to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords, and to sit and vote in that House. ")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No.28, grouped with Amendment No.67, which is consequential upon it.
We now move from major constitutional matters to the quieter backwaters of detail. In the course of debates we have spoken of hereditary Peers, life Peers, Peers of first creation and Peers by acceleration. My amendment concerns a group of Peers who hold hereditary titles but clearly do not fit the category in Clause 1 of the Bill because they were never entitled to be Members of this House by virtue of hereditary peerages. In consequence, they are still not so entitled, although they sit here.
The Peers in question are those Peers of Scotland identified in my amendment. My research suggests that nowadays there are 11 in the group, of whom nine have taken their seats. I am one and so is my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton, as is the noble Earl, Lord Perth. We are Peers of Scotland only who held our titles prior to 31st July 1963, the day on which the Peerage Act of that year came into force. Prior to that day, as explained in the course of yesterday's debates on the Act of Union, we could only sit here—one Parliament at a time—if elected as one of Scotland's 16 representative Peers. After that day we were all entitled to come here.
Indisputably, we never had hereditary entitlement. What was the nature of our entitlement? By virtue of what were we admitted? Perhaps the answer lies in the entry in the Journal of the House on the first occasion after 31st July 1963 when any one of us took our seat, an entry that read:
"Sat first in Parliament pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 of the Peerage Act 1963".
The answer to the question of entitlement must, therefore, be by virtue of an Act of Parliament. Does that place us in any of the categories of Peers in the Bill? I see that one of our number, my noble friend Lord Reay, has just joined us. Each of us is a hereditary Peer but each of us is the first of his or her line to sit here by right. Does that place us in the category of first creation? If so, perhaps we will each receive a letter from the Prime Minister. We shall wait and see. On the other hand, are we life Peers for the purposes of this Bill?
The Government, if they are determined to be rid of us, must answer those questions and decide how they will do so, or accept my amendment for the avoidance of doubt. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Newby: It seems to me that the answer to the question came from the noble Lord's own mouth when he said, "Each of us is a hereditary Peer". That being so, the only argument in which we can engage in terms of special pleading for the small category of Peers of which the noble Lord is a member was debated at great length earlier in our discussions about special provisions for Peers from Scotland.
I do not want to re-enter that debate, except to say that we all agree that there should be adequate representation for Scotland, and every other nation and
486
region of the UK. As there will be adequate representation for Scotland in the interim House, there is no need for the amendment to be supported.
Lord Gray: Perhaps I may deal with that point. The noble Lord said that I condemned myself out of my own mouth. He missed the point. I said that we never had sat here by right of the hereditary peerage; we came here by Act of Parliament. If we never had a hereditary right to be here, we did not get it from that Act. We were allowed to have a Writ of Summons as a consequence of that Act and certainly not as a consequence of our hereditary right.
The Earl of Caithness: Will my noble friend clarify my position? Being one of those who would qualify to be elected in Scotland, and I did not take my peerage until 1965, when my father died, am I within the ambit of his amendment?
Lord Gray: I can answer my noble friend Lord Caithness quickly. I am afraid that he lies without the ambit because he did not hold his title before 31st July 1963.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may give the noble Lord, Lord Newby, some advice. He would be better leaving the Government's reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, because he has just entered some difficult territory in the peerages of Scotland. My noble friend Lord Caithness illustrated the point. He has a Scottish peerage, but he is here by heredity because he succeeded his father after 1963. However, my noble friend Lord Gray is not here by heredity because of the 1963 Act.
When my noble friend Lord Gray inherited his peerage in 1946, he could not come here, even if he were a UK Peer, because he was too young. But in 1952 he became old enough to do so. He was a hereditary Peer, but he could not come to this House because he was not one of the 16 who were elected. As he explained, he failed to be elected—and I know that he was pretty determined not to be elected at that time. My noble friend came after 1963 only because of the passage of the Act.
It is a narrow point and because I know the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, well enough I know what he will say. But that is not the answer which the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches tried to give on behalf of the Government. Interestingly enough—
Lord Newby: I should have known better than to intervene in the arcane nature of Scottish matters. Is the noble Lord from the Official Opposition Bench seeking to argue that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is in this House for a reason other than being the possessor of a hereditary peerage?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am arguing that if it were not for the 1963 Act, and assuming that my noble friend had continued to fail to be elected as one

487
of the 16, he could not come here, despite the fact that he was a hereditary Peer of Scotland with an ancient title.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, my noble friend Lord Forbes, the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and the noble Lords, Lord Napier and Ettrick, Lord Belhaven and Stenton and Lord Polwarth, are in that category, too. I have obviously disturbed the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Avebury: I was in the other place when the 1963 Act was passed and I remember it well. Is the noble Lord saying that because a person came here by virtue of an Act of Parliament, and he is a hereditary Peer and therefore the holder of a hereditary peerage, Clause 1 does not apply to him?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am trying to illustrate the question which my noble friend Lord Gray has put, because he is not here because he is a hereditary Peer. I tried to explain that if there had not been a 1963 Act, and if my noble friend had failed to be elected, he would not have been able to come here. However, he would still be a hereditary Peer and hold the title Lord Gray. There is no question about that. It is a matter about which I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is well equipped to answer and give sound legal advice.
The Earl of Erroll: Perhaps I may add to that because other amendments have been rejected on the ground that hereditary Peers may sit here after being elected, nominated or whatever; they are not disbarred from being members of the future interim House by virtue of hereditary peerage.
However, if in this case it is argued that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, cannot sit here by virtue of the 1963 Act, but his hereditary peerage overrules that, presumably a hereditary peerage also overrules other situations in which we might be able to stand for election or be nominated to an interim House. It would appear that being a hereditary Peer is our most terrible defect. I believe that one cannot have it both ways. One cannot say, first, that the 1963 Act does not overrule the hereditary peerage and, secondly, that something else does. I am very interested in this issue.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: What an interesting debate it has been. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gray. It is that those of us who were Scottish Peers before 31st July 1963, and who had not been elected as representative Peers, became Members of this House not by virtue of being hereditary Peers but by virtue of the statute. That is ingenious, but wrong for the following reasons.
The position before 31st July 1963 was that only those Scottish hereditary Peers who had been elected could become Members of this House. That restriction was removed by the 1963 Act. As a result, on that date all Scottish Peers were entitled to become Members of this House. Does the noble Lord, Lord Gray, by way of example on those facts, become a Member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage? Yes, he does. The restriction which had previously prevented him
488
becoming a Member by virtue of a hereditary peerage—namely, the Act of Union—had been removed by the 1963 Act. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, I do not believe that there would be any difficulty in a court reaching that conclusion.
That is as a matter of construction. As a matter of intention of the Act, and with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, and those of his fellows who came into the House on 31st July 1963, can one think of any reason why they and they alone should be protected from what is the plain intent and effect of the provision? I am afraid not. Therefore, although the argument was put incredibly eloquently and incredibly well, and even misled the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for a moment, it is in my respectful submission entirely wrong and entirely without merit.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the noble Lord sits down, in the interests of the arcaneness which has characterised this part of the debate, may I ask him this? He talked about removal of a restriction by means of the 1963 Act. When was that restriction imposed?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In 1707.
Lord Gray: The debate has been very interesting. I am grateful to all who have spoken, including the noble and learned Lord who replied. But I do not agree with him. This is amazing temerity on my part, since I am nothing approaching a lawyer; I am barely educated.
But I feel that my case is supported by the words in the 1963 Act in Section 4. It provides further back-up for what I have been arguing. I shall read it out for the benefit of the Committee:
"The holder of a peerage in the peerage of Scotland shall have the same right to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords, and to sit and vote in that House. as the holder of a peerage in the peerage of the United Kingdom".
There are a few more words that do not concern us here because they refer merely to repeal of enactments.
I should like to make the following points. First, one can have the same right as someone else but for different reasons. What is the right that is granted? It is the right to a Writ of Summons, not the right to sit by virtue of a hereditary peerage.
The right given by Section 4 is identified. I have just quoted it, and I shall paraphrase it now. It is the same right as that of the holder of a peerage of the United Kingdom. Peers of the United Kingdom include life Peers, as is clear from their Letters Patent. This seems to reinforce my view expressed earlier that perhaps Peers in this peculiar category are in fact life Peers for the purposes of the Bill. There is no mention of heredity in Section 4 of the 1963 Act.
I have not been seeking to argue that we should come here when all our hereditary fellows go. No, I am drawing the Government's attention to a point where I think they have missed a trick. The draftsman could have written "England" instead of "United Kingdom-, since the peerages all predate the Union. But he did not.

489
We have to go by the words on the face of the Act, not by presumed intention, and I think that the words equate us with life Peers.
At this point I should like to make, rather churlishly perhaps, a complaint about the Explanatory Notes issued with the Bill by the Cabinet Office. Paragraph 24 refers to Section 4 of the 1963 Act, saying:
"Section 4 of the 1963 Act allows all Scottish hereditary peers to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House on the same basis as a UK hereditary peer. As no peer will by virtue of a hereditary peerage be entitled to membership of the House of Lords, section 4 can be repealed".
There is no mention of "heredity" in Section 4 of the 1963 Act. This is misleading and should be corrected.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I should like to revert to the issue of removal of a restriction. I know that it is a small point, but I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord to review his reply, because I begin to wonder whether he is correct in saying that the 1707 Act imposed a restriction on Scottish Peers. I do not believe that Scottish Peers ever had the right to sit in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Gray, may in fact be correct in his basic interpretation of the history of this point. I would ask the Minister to look at that outside the Committee.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not think my basic position changes one jot. As the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has indicated, there is a second point—that the effect of Section 4 is that Scottish hereditary Peers are treated exactly the same as United Kingdom hereditary Peers by the 1963 Act. The effect is that whether the point is wrong or right in the way that I put it, they are to be treated in every respect as if they are United Kingdom hereditary Peers, which they are obviously.
Does the restriction in Clause 1 of the Bill, which says that one cannot sit and vote in the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage, apply to somebody who, first, is a hereditary Peer, and, secondly, is described in the 1963 Act as someone who is to be treated for all purposes as a UK hereditary Peer? I would have thought, speaking for myself and for the Government, that that question allows of only one answer.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble and learned Lord almost tripped up over his own words. It seems to me that there is some doubt about this matter. My noble friend Lord Gray has raised a very good point. I accept that the noble and learned Lord happens to think otherwise, but it is not clear beyond a peradventure. There is respectable opinion, respectable legal opinion, for the view contrary to that held by the noble and learned Lord, and that respectable opinion should be taken into account.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew made clear on an earlier amendment, there is respectable legal opinion on other matters in connection with the Bill as well. It is a sad fact that there are a number of profound
490
legal questions about various aspects of the Bill, all of which I hope we shall explore during the Committee stage.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I should like to make it absolutely clear that I regard the noble Lord, Lord Gray, as absolutely respectable. However, the argument advanced here is utterly hopeless, and there is absolutely no purpose in giving the Committee any expectation that we shall reconsider the matter.
Lord Trefgarne: That is not entirely a question for the noble and learned Lord himself. In the end, it is a matter for the courts.
Lord Gray: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and others. I had better not prolong this debate, but I was a little upset that the noble and learned Lord repeated what I complained about, in that he equated us with UK hereditary Peers, a matter which is not in Section 4 of the 1963 Act. I still maintain that the words,
"by virtue of a hereditary peerage",
are the ones we should be looking at in terms of my arguments, not my possession of a hereditary peerage.
We have had a good discussion. I shall not threaten to come back but, on advice, I may come back. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.29 not moved.]
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No.30:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert—
("(2) This section does not apply to any member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage who was on the day on which this Act is passed a member of the Privy Council. ")
The noble Lord said: I hope that in moving this amendment I may receive slightly more sympathy from the Government than anyone has received so far.
My amendment would exclude from the provisions of Clause 1 privy counsellors who also hold hereditary peerages. They have had conferred upon them a distinction at least as great as—some of us would say greater than—a life peerage. They were in each case selected for this appointment by the democratically elected government of the day. It is therefore similar to the way in which life Peers and hereditary Peers of the first creation have been appointed.
It is that selection, presumably on merit, which the Labour Party uses to differentiate hereditary Peers, whom the Bill seeks to exclude from Parliament, from the life Peers, who are to remain ad interim.
I emphasise that I have paid the closest attention—and who would not?—to the Labour manifesto in attempting to produce an amendment which should be acceptable to the Government as not violating their manifesto.
One may perhaps add that while, from time to time, it has been suggested that some life Peers may have been appointed in return for favours, whether financial, personal or for party, as far as I am aware, no such aspersions have been made, at least in living memory,

491
in respect of those appointed to the Privy Council, and most certainly not in respect of those who would be covered by my amendment.
At present, there are 495 members of the Privy Council. Of those, 195—40 per cent—are Members of your Lordships' House. Of the 195, 174 are life Peers or Peers of first creation. They will remain in any event. There are only 21 who first entered the House as hereditary Peers but who now have the distinction of being Privy Counsellors. That is 21 out of 750 hereditary Peers.
The great majority of those 21 would not have had open to them the opportunity of using the House of Commons as the route to distinguished public service. The 21 does not include those who entered the House as Peers before succeeding later to an hereditary peerage, of whom there are two or three; nor those hereditary Peers of first creation who have received a letter from the Prime Minister offering them a life peerage. I recognise that it would be open to the Prime Minister to meet the purpose of my amendment by sending a similar letter offering a life peerage to those 21 privy counsellors who happen to be hereditary Peers. However, as it is not within the power of the Committee to do anything about that, it seems reasonable to raise the issue as an amendment to the Bill at this stage.
Before I develop my argument, I feel that I should read to your Lordships the names of those who, if my amendment were to be accepted, would remain here on the same basis as life Peers. They are my noble friend Lord Aberdare, the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, my noble friends Lord Belstead and Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Camoys, my noble friends Lord Cranborne, Lord Carrington, Lord Denham, the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, my noble friends Lord Ferrers, Lord Gowrie, Lord Hesketh and Lord Jellicoe, the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord 'Trefgarne, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, and my noble friend Lord Windlesham.
It may be convenient also to mention that 13 of the 21 are Conservatives, six are Cross-Benchers and one is Labour. Over half of them—12 to be precise—are regular attenders which I define as having attended on at least one-third of the days in the last Session. Of the 12, nine attended on at least 60 per cent of the sitting days and five on more than 80 per cent of the sitting days.
Perhaps I may explain briefly why I believe that the Privy Council is so important in our national life and thus, why those who are members of it are set apart from the rest of us. As Dicey put it, in his famous 1860 essay on the Privy Council:
"Our Parliament and our Law Courts are but the outgrowth of our Council".
It is certainly true that its origins are very ancient. In 1237, Henry III appointed a council of 12, the members of which took an oath to furnish faithful advice and—which, in a way. is more interesting—the king took an oath to follow that. Following Magna Carta some 25 years before, surely that was a crucial stepping stone
492
on the route to the constitutional monarchy which we have today. Those who were not nobles were simply given the title "counsellor" and according to one authority that,
"gave him greater weight than the proudest baron".
By the time of Edward I, the Privy Council was a permanent body of Royal advisers qualified to render the Crown custodian of the subjects' safety. That is another reflection of the earlier Magna Carta.
Indeed, the jealousy of the Barons of the powers of the council was a recurring theme in that early history. By 1340, there were signs that the appointment of commoners to the council represented the early intrusion of the democratic element into the seats of the mighty. Thereafter, it gradually became to some extent an alternative to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal. In Tudor times its role was formalised. From 1540 onwards it became much more structured, becoming not only the effective Cabinet under the reforms of Thomas Cromwell but also, especially under Henry VIII, as we so often remember in our legislation, an important instrument of government which was, to some extent, an alternative to Parliament.
For the 150 years that followed the Battle of Bosworth, it began to be composed more and more from measures of merit rather than standards of nobility. Thus, there was a separating out of selection by ability rather than by right of birth. It is a process which I contend has continued to this day.
Therefore, if the basic principle of this Government is that legislators should be selected either by the people through elections or by a government on merit, I hope that they will not feel that my amendment violates that principle. I contend it is far less contrary both to the spirit and the letter of the Labour Party manifesto than the Weatherill amendment, to which I understand they have agreed on quite different grounds from those on which I argue today.
Of course, it would be open to the 21 to put themselves forward under the terms of the Weatherill amendment, if that becomes part of the Bill, and some may well do so. Others among them, whose counsel we should value as much as any, would almost certainly not do so.
In conclusion, I contend that at least until a stage two emerges, the House of Lords should retain the 21 as that part of the collection of talent, wisdom and experience in public service for which the Bill already provides. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: From the Government's point of view, it is understandable that they should resist vigorously many of the amendments moved so far. But this amendment, explained so well by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is surely in quite a different category.
The Government have stated on more than one occasion during the past few weeks that they want people to sit in this House on their own merits and not

493
on the merits of their forebears. This amendment fulfils the Government's wishes in that respect. So how can they resist it?
Lord Hughes: No one was appointed to the Privy Council because he was a Member of the House of Lords. He will not cease to be a member of the Privy Council if he ceases to be a Member of the House of Lords. There is no logic at all in the amendment. Its only merit is that it has given us a history of the Privy Council.
Lord Vivian: I do not wish to become involved in a debate on the composition of the interim Chamber, but I foresee a void of wisdom, experience and counsel in the number of Peers who may be proposed for the interim stage. For that reason, I support the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Henley: I begin by offering my apologies for my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish who was to respond to this debate, but he has had to return to Scotland for the elections, and I wish him well there.
I am glad to see that it appears that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will respond to this amendment. I suspect that that is some indication of the importance which she attaches to the amendment. I think there were many in the Chamber who were somewhat surprised that she did not respond to the earlier amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry; but there it is. She is to respond to this amendment. As I said, I believe it is one of the strongest arguments we have heard for retaining certain categories of hereditary Peers in the interim House. The presence of the noble Baroness on this occasion seems to give some support to that argument.
As my noble friend Lord Marlesford made clear, privy councillorship is a rare and high honour and reflects real achievement. It certainly meets the criterion that has been repeatedly cited by the Government that hereditary peerages are past rights whereas life peerages—as I believe I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Richard, say on occasion—reflect present and genuine merit. Some might say they represent friendship or patronage, but that is another point.
As my noble friend made clear, there are some 29 hereditary Peers who have the honour of being Members of the Privy Council. As he stressed, the amendment would only bring in some 20 as others already have rights to remain here, in that they are life Peers or members of the Royal Family and are therefore not covered. Those 20 or so certainly have an honour that reflects their present merit. In addition to that, because of their hereditary peerages, they have had a seat in Parliament and a place in public service for many long years, even before they reached that high honour.
What rational Parliament in the world would expel those very Members who carry one of the highest honours in the land, all of whom were honoured for their achievements in public service? As I said, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will be responding to this amendment. Is she saying that we will solemnly expel all those former hereditary Leaders of the House
494
who are privy counsellors? I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on her own Benches; my noble friends Lord Jellicoe, Lord Cranborne, Lord Belstead and Lord Carrington—privy councillors, Cabinet Ministers, former Leaders of the House or Leaders of the Opposition.
Are we really to expel former Ministers or Chief Whips of such calibre as my noble friend Lord Denham, at whose feet I can say I learnt what few skills I have as Chief Whip, or my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who has offered much valuable advice to me over the years and continues to do so to the House during the course of this Bill? Are we to do that simply because of their crime of being the children of their fathers, hereditary Peers, despite the fact that they have also earns the honour of being privy councillors?
There has to be some way round this. I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will give serious attention to the amendment. I am grateful that it is the noble Baroness who is to respond to this debate and to respond to my noble friend Lord Marlesford.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am very pleased indeed to respond to the extremely interesting idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Perhaps I may say from the outset that of course the Government agree that noble Lords who are Members of the Privy Council are distinguished public servants. As the noble Lord made clear in introducing the amendment, the Privy Council plays an extremely important part in our national life.
Perhaps I may assure the Committee, once more, that nothing in the Bill prevents a distinguished hereditary Peer from becoming a Member of Your Lordships' House as a life Peer. As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford reminded us, that is the basis on which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister invited Peers of first creation to accept life peerages; that is, that life peerages would probably have been given to them in the first instance had that been their choice and had that been the method of their reaching this House that had been agreed.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was honest enough to describe the party affiliations of the majority of those who fall into the category of the group he is trying to preserve by means of the amendment. It is open to the leadership of the Conservative Party to suggest precisely those Members of the hereditary peerage who may leave your Lordships' House who are privy councillors and should return as life Peers. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill to preclude that. I am happy to take the opportunity to make that clear once more.
We should also be clear about the fact that most of the current Members of your Lordships' House who also enjoy the honour of being members of the Privy Council are former Ministers. Some received that honour for government service while being Members of this House and some for their service in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in introducing his amendment, described the contribution of a number of noble Lords whose names he gave and stated that some had been very regular attenders. My information is that

495
several of those distinguished people, who we all agree are distinguished public servants, have not attended. I believe that five of those named attended less than a total of 10 times during the 1997–1998 Session. I am sure there were good reasons for that arid have no doubt that they were engaged on other public service. However, it indicates that there is no guarantee that being a member of the Privy Council is relevant to active membership of your Lordships' House and, therefore, should not necessarily be valued in that context.
I also believe that the number involved—that is, 21—will not commend itself to those who see the desirability of a significant number of hereditary Peers remaining, perhaps under the amendment that we have before us in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and which we shall shortly discuss.
I must also say to the noble Lord, and those who support him, that I understand the reasons behind the amendment. I hope I have answered it fully and have explained the background to the relevance of Privy Council membership. However, the Government are not tempted by this approach. In a sense, it is precisely the problem we have discussed on so many amendments; that is, that we do not wish to retain any automatic relationship between the holding of a hereditary peerage and membership of your Lordships' House. As I stated at the beginning of my response, there are other ways in which distinguished public servants may become Members of your Lordships' House which are open to former Members who have been here until now on the basis of their hereditary peerage and who are also privy counsellors.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Baroness sits down I wonder whether she could answer one question. I apologise in advance if this has already been answered at an earlier stage. Will those hereditary Peers who are made life Peers be obliged to go through a ceremony of introduction?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: That has been the subject of some discussion. I believe that in response to another amendment we referred to the correspondence which has taken place between one noble Lord who is a Peer of first creation and is considering whether to take a life peerage. That was in relation to his title. The question of introduction has also been considered. However, as I do not have his permission to quote from that correspondence, whereas I did in relation to the name of his title, I would prefer to write to the noble Lord, once permission has been obtained from the Peer concerned.
Lord Marlesford: I am, in a sense, rather grateful for the relatively positive attitude taken by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House towards what I am attempting to do.
As I stated, I would be perfectly happy to see the mechanism of a life peerage used to retain the services of these particular individuals. It is, of course, a totally self-limiting list. By definition this will not occur again in any way.
496
With the greatest respect, I must correct the noble Baroness on what she said as regards the numbers. I have checked and found that only three of the 21 had attended less than 10 times; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Camoys, the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne. The attendance of the rest was remarkably strong. I did not make a comparison with the rest of the House but my guess is that they were, in general, more regular attenders than the great majority of life Peers.
The noble Baroness says that it will be up to the Opposition, the Conservative Party, to put forward names. If that means that instead of the Prime Minister writing to the seven hereditary Peers of first creation, as he has done, offering them a life Peerage, the Leader of the Conservative Party in this House, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, could write a similar letter, then that would meet my point perfectly.
I am not sure whether that is what the noble Baroness was suggesting would be possible. As I understand it, ultimately the Prime Minister of the day, even under the new rules, still has some responsibility for deciding how many from each party, even though not distinguishing between the names, should be allowed. But on that basis I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment for now and perhaps bring it back and discuss it further on Report.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps it would save the noble Lord time if I say that I was perhaps being excessively generous with a form of patronage which is certainly not within my power. I apologise for that. All I was suggesting was that there was no way in which a future, present or, given the discussion earlier this afternoon, any Leader of the Conservative Party would not be able to suggest and nominate life Peers in precisely the same way that they do at the moment.
Lord Marlesford: Provided the generosity— I regarded it as characteristic rather than excessive—of the noble Baroness is in due course able to be translated, that would probably meet the case. At any rate. I have no doubt there can be further discussions on the matter in the next few weeks and, if necessary, we can come back to it on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No.30A:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert—
("(2A) The personal and property rights to enter, sit and speak in the House of Lords as granted by Letters Patent and existing in customary and common laws, shall not be changed by this Act.")
The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendment No.30A in order to refute some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and the Minister. I have read Hansard with great diligence and would like to set the record straight.
In the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, responding to mine on 27th April, he challenged the entire concept and the practicality of hereditary Peers having rights of property in this House. He relied on the

497
grant of Letters Patent as the sole source of those property rights. He explained that hereditary Peers' rights of property could not exist once hereditary Peers were no longer in receipt of a Writ of Summons and thus unable to swear the Oath of Allegiance. He therefore claimed that my amendment was flawed.
I believe the noble Lord ignored the argument which I brought forward, with good supporting authority, concerning property rights in the House acquired by hereditary Peers under customary and common laws. Thus property rights in this House are acquired by both Letters Patent and by common law. They are separate causes for which there are well recognised, established legal precedents.
I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that his argument cannot possibly lead to the conclusion that my amendment was flawed. He ignores the fundamental fact of rights in property acquired by usage. This Bill removes those rights.
The noble Lord also stated that Amendment No.30A was flawed because it did not include all hereditary Peers. Again, I have to correct that view. All peerages, whether created by writ, charter, Letters Patent or according to the Life Peerages Act, have a claim to property rights in this House. The common law right to enter these premises applies to all Peers. In the case of hereditary Peers, their property rights are to be removed.
I refer the noble Lord to the fact that the descent of peerage in England is, and from time immemorial has been, governed by the common law rules of inheritance. This is a principle of the peerage law in England. A peerage, with rights created prior to 1397, as was the noble Lord's opposite, has the same hereditary rights in this House as all those created by Letters Patent. In that sense there are not two classes of peerage. Those prior to 1397 were created by writ, some by oral grant of the sovereign, some by Act of Parliament and some by charter. In all cases, rights were granted which have been and are passed on according to the common laws of inheritance.
It is settled law that if a Writ of Summons is issued and the summoned person takes his seat in the House of Lords, he has thereby acquired a hereditary peerage with the right to sit in the House. Creation by writ is ancient and, to quote Lord Coke,
"A man shall gain an inheritance by writ…but the writ has no operation until he sit in Parliament".
Once a Peer exercises the right to sit, it is passed on by common law. It is not my amendment which seeks to circumvent the Bill, as the noble Lord clearly stated; it is the Bill which not merely circumvents the customary laws of property, but seeks to destroy them.
Perhaps I may express my concern at an unfortunate comparison made by the Minister—who is not present this afternoon—in his response to my amendment on 27th April. He referred to Peers who were deprived of their rights under the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 if they supported the enemy in the Great War. It seems from his remark that the noble Lord considers that hereditary Peers, especially those who fought our enemies in wars, are also to be deprived and thus to be classed with those
498
who were traitors in 1917. I hope the noble Lord was not, albeit unintentionally, revealing the attitude of the Government concerning hereditary Peers. Perhaps the noble Baroness will ask the Minister to withdraw that comparison which he made.
Finally, in response to the Minister's remarks about Letters Patent, I have acknowledged in my several speeches to the Bill that Letters Patent can be changed by statute. However, the principle does not provide any authorisation from the electorate to remove property rights acquired by custom under common law. That effect was never even hinted at in the Labour Party's political manifesto.
The Minister stated in his remarks that I made a claim to personal property rights in this House, under provisions in the statute of Westminster. I did not. I stated that the statute required the Government to obtain the consent of all Commonwealth Parliaments, since the Bill touches upon the sovereign's inherited titles. I believe the Minister was confused. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has clearly had another go. It is not usual to speak again on a consequential amendment, though there was another occasion the other day.
I do not understand his speech. I did not understand it last time and I do not understand it now. He seems to argue that a Peer has property rights transcending anything else and the sovereignty of Parliament. It seems to me to smack of the ancien régime and I do not believe it has any validity at all.
The noble Lord also says that peerages by writ were created by the sovereign. They are not created; they stem from the fact that their ancestors sat in Parliament and signed the Parliament roll. That gradually became a peerage. They were not necessarily always peerages for life. They could be taken away by the King if he did not summons them to a subsequent Parliament, and they were not always hereditary. That evolved over the centuries.
As I said, I do not agree with the noble Lord. His argument is specious. It assumes that Parliament is not sovereign and that the nobility have rights over and above Parliament. That may have happened in the 18th century in France, but it does not happen in 20th century Britain.
Viscount Torrington: In refuting what the noble Lord said, surely Parliament is in fact a collection of those who received a writ to attend. It is not the bricks and mortar of this building.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I can hardly improve on what my noble friend Lord Strabolgi said, but perhaps I can make two preliminary points.
My understanding as a complete novice in this House is that when people agree to a grouping, although they clearly have a right to come back, there is not much point if they just ignore the grouping when we discussed

499
all the issues on the first occasion. Having said that, I shall deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
First, I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn is not here. Knowing him as I do, I know perfectly well that he would never have intended, nor did he say anything which could possibly suggest, that he was comparing the present hereditary Peers to traitors of the country. That was made absolutely clear. If and in so far as anybody could possibly have got that impression, it was never intended. I know that my noble friend would never have intended that.
I shall now deal with the substance of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. At its heart it has two propositions which, with the greatest respect, seem to me to be greatly misconceived. The first is the nature of a hereditary Peer's right to sit in this House; but, uniquely. it is not subject to the sovereignty of Parliament. Whereas every other single right, whether property or not, can be changed, the noble Lord argues that the right to sit in this House by a hereditary Peer can never be changed. That is absurd; indeed, the moment one states the proposition one can see that it must be wrong. The fact that it is wrong is demonstrated by the fact that both the Committee for Privileges and this House have treated it as wrong in the past.
The Committee for Privileges treated that proposition as wrong in the Viscountess Rhondda case in 1922, and the legislative House treated it as wrong in Section 6 of the Peerage Act 1963 when it allowed Letters Patent to be changed to allow Peeresses to take their seats. Quite separately from the legal connotations which those two points indicate, the idea that of all rights in all the world that of an hereditary Peer to sit in this House is the only one that can never be changed is absurd.
The second point is what underlies the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie; namely, that a right to sit in a Chamber of Parliament is a right of property. Is it the only right of property that cannot be sold? Indeed, every other right of property can be sold on the open market. Is the noble Lord seriously suggesting that a hereditary peerage comes into that category as far as concerns the right to sit here? Again, merely stating the proposition seems to me to suggest its absurdity. Although I respect the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, I believe that his propositions are founded on completely absurd and misconceived notions.
Lord Norrie: I am most grateful for the full replies that I have received this evening; indeed, my speech certainly generated some steam in the Chamber. I am interested only in the legal connotations. That is my sole concern. If those on the opposite side of the Chamber are satisfied that all this is within the law, then that is fine by me. Perhaps I am trying to be Devil's advocate so as to bring out a few points which I feel are not covered in the legislation. However, provided that the other side is satisfied, I am satisfied. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I think that this might be a convenient moment for the Committee to break for
500
dinner. I therefore beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.23 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Benefits
7.22 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what further action they propose to increase the take-up of social security benefits.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have joined me to address a problem of deep importance to many of the most needful people in Britain today. That time has been found for this debate, interrupting as it does our proceedings on the House of Lords Bill, is testimony to the abiding concern of this House for the problems of others as well as its own.
As my noble friend the Minster is aware, my perspective is that of a parliamentarian and former Minister principally involved in legislating for the basic elements of the special financial and other help now available to chronically sick and disabled people. For help to which they are entitled not to be reaching some 50 per cent of those eligible, involving the loss to them of £6 billion in disability living allowance alone, is plainly unacceptable. It is not only hurtful to needful people, but an affront to those in all parties who have striven over three decades to protect them from the social exclusion that poverty inflicts They include notably my good and noble friend Lord Ashley and. of course, my noble friend Lady Castle, who has phoned me to say how sorry she is that she cannot be here tonight.
This debate is a response to the mounting concern among organisations of disabled people not only about the £6 billion lost in DLA but also the billions more in other unclaimed benefits. It is difficult for them, as for older people, to understand why, when the Government can target a cruise missile at a telephone booth in another country, they cannot successfully deliver cash benefits to severely disabled and other needful people in this country.
In reply to a Parliamentary Question on 10th November last, I was told:
"My noble friend is right that the amount unclaimed could well exceed £6 billion. We estimate that half those who may he entitled to DLA do not claim it".
My noble friend Lady Hollis had told me, replying to an earlier Parliamentary Question on 2nd June last, that the Government were investigating why the estimated 50 per cent of eligible disabled people had not applied for the allowance; but I know of no ministerial statement since then on the outcome of their investigation.
The latest ministerial statement I have seen on take-up was that made to the right honourable Dafydd Wigley by my honourable friend Hugh Bayley in another place on 4th March. After saying that the DSS was working

501
with the Disability Benefits Forum to identify ways of improving information and advice about disability benefits, the reply stated:
"We are determined to improve the administration of these benefits to ensure that decisions about entitlement are right at the outset and that they remain correct. These are necessary steps which must be taken before decisions can be made about the need for a take-up campaign".
To this suggestion that it is too soon for a take-up campaign, the disability organisations reply that in fact, when the Government themselves estimate that disabled people miss out on £6 billion in DLA alone, it is already woefully late. They say that figure shouts the urgency of the need for a government-led national campaign.
Moreover, while Whitehall waits, town and country halls show what can be done. It's a right… not a lottery— giving information on the Local Government Association's Benefit Take-up Initiative—abounds in examples of imaginative ways of reaching people who are failing to claim help that is due to them. Suffolk County Council includes a benefits check on all county care assessments. Last year there were over 5,000 such assessments, and today just under 90 per cent of people receiving home care in Suffolk receive the attendance allowance. Elsewhere the figure is between 60 per cent and 70 per cent.
Some councils which pay housing benefit tell people if they should be receiving other help when their computer picks up details of low income. Newcastle City Council now takes this further in a rolling programme of take-up work, aimed at identifying unclaimed help, while Somerset's Welfare Rights Unit has raised over £5 million in four years by concentrating on claims for people with physical and sensory disabilities.
Last week I had the pleasure of presenting the National Information Forum's annual "Getting the Message Across" awards, one of which went to Bristol City Council's Money Advice Service for a hugely successful disability benefits take-up campaign. With limited resources, the campaign had secured over £4 million a year for more than 2,000 disabled people, most of whom had existed for years on less than their correct entitlement. Important factors in Bristol's success were a telephone service on five days a week and a casework service based on home visits, a key element in reaching disabled people. It was heartening also to be able to present an award to the Benefits Agency for restructuring and simplifying its leaflets and to reflect on how much more it could achieve if the Government prioritised take-up by launching a major national campaign.
It must be hoped that none of the initiatives by local authorities will be restrained by the parliamentary reply given to Dafydd Wigley on 4th March. Improving administration is unquestionably important, as the reply to him says, but so too is timely prevention of preventable hardship among frail elderly and disabled people, as I am sure all DSS Ministers will agree. Local councils often see more clearly than Whitehall that all too many vulnerable people are at high risk when, for
502
whatever reason, help Parliament intended for them is delayed, and that for them help delayed is often help tragically denied.
Hopefully we shall hear tonight how the Government intend to tackle the £6 billion loss to disabled people in DLA. Meanwhile we should all reflect on the sheer scale of the sum involved. For example it is treble the annual cost of everybody's TV licence fee in this country. As I was reminded today by Chrissie Maher of the Plain English Campaign, it should also be compared with the pensions mis-selling scandal. When that was discovered, the Government acted with exemplary speed to overhaul the law. But when the problem of unclaimed disability benefits is raised, the answer is that Whitehall's administration must first be improved,
"before decisions can be made about the need for a take-up campaign".
My noble friend has long been respected by disability organisations for her readiness to help and she will know how disquieted they are by the decision to delay a national take-up campaign. They find it extremely worrying too that the consultation paper A New Contract for Welfare—which paved the way for the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill—made no reference to take-up notwithstanding the enormous scale of underclaiming. Nor is failure to claim their entitlements a problem only for disabled people. It affects 700,000 older people who do not receive their entitlement to income support. Age Concern asks why,
"it is taking so long to conclude the obvious: namely, that many older people are too proud to claim what they perceive as a handout despite the fact that the money comes from the same DSS budget as their state pension; the forms are too long and complicated; and the rules unnecessarily harsh".
I honour the work of organisations like Age Concern whose benefit advice services and annual Your Rights Week, together with its guide to money benefits entitled Your Rights, constitute a model of what the voluntary sector can do to inform and help older people. Sally Greengross said recently on its behalf,
"At £75 a week, income support is £8.25 more than the basic state pension. It is scandalous that so many of Britain's poorest older people are unaware of their entitlement. £2 billion a year goes unclaimed by them. A successful claim for even a few pence of income support could mean extra help with housing costs, the council tax and glasses and dental work".
Sally expresses her concern also that far fewer people will be receiving in SERPS what they thought they would. What makes this even worse is that since 1986 the DSS has singularly failed to let widows and widowers know that the amount of SERPS they will inherit is halved on 6th April 2000. My noble friend has told the House that the total cost is £5.5 billion. That is money older people were expecting to receive. Now they are told it will go to the Treasury. I know my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will also be addressing this other scandal as the debate proceeds and that he will do so with all his customary skill and sincerity.
I conclude, as Agnes Fletcher, to whom I am most grateful, did in a recent paper for RADAR, by summarising the reasons why even people in compelling need often fail to claim their entitlements. Many do not know they are eligible. A vicious circle of poverty creating isolation and social exclusion makes people less

503
aware of their rights and how to claim. Again, many feel that there is a stigma attached to claiming, based on generalised allegations of fraud in some parts of the media.
Our principal responsibility as parliamentarians to disabled people, indeed our bounden duty, is to do all we can to reduce the handicapping effects of their disabilities. Failure to ensure that they receive the statutory help to which they are entitled increases the handicapping effects of their disabilities. That is why this question is so very important to Britain's 8 million disabled people.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate this subject. Indeed I must salute the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for once again raising these matters. I welcome his reference to benefits for the disabled. He has soldiered away in this particular trench for far longer than I care to remember.
This is the kind of debate where one can feel the Government machine getting a little uneasy because we are calling on the Government to say that they will spend more money. That may involve departments "having a go" at each other. One wonders whether the Treasury is totally happy with the idea of paying out what it has promised to pay out. I mention that as an aside.
The real point I wish to make is that the system for obtaining benefits increasingly requires pieces of paper to be filled in correctly. Over the past few years it has been established that many people in our society have tremendous difficulty with the written word. I approach this matter as a dyslexic who is involved with various dyslexia organisations. However, I am not just talking about dyslexics in this regard. I refer to people who are educational failures and who consequently usually have tremendous problems in the workplace. Therefore, they are most in need of benefits. The system is designed to help such people. Those people will always experience difficulties when presented with pieces of paper.
When the new single gateway system is introduced will there he enough staff who are trained in dealing with adults who have literacy problems? This is not just a matter of saying to someone, "Here is a form. Oh, you can't read, then?" Staff in these situations require tact, subtlety and a degree of knowledge of the kinds of problems that people experience in this regard. Staff need to know how people like to be approached when information is elicited.
I have given notice of the questions that I wish to ask. Can the Minister tell us what assistance has been made available to people who have problems in understanding forms and filling them in? This is not just a matter of filling in the correct answer. We have long moved away from that concept, although that is still occasionally required. However, we have to address the needs of people who have difficulty in understanding forms. Are staff trained in approaching people to ask whether they have literacy problems?
Let us consider the case of a young man in his twenties who has severe problems with writing and whose experience of the educational process is totally
504
negative. Such a person may become nervous merely at the sight of a form. Are staff trained to deal with such people? People with such difficulties are most in need of help. I salute the Government's intention—whether it will be their practice remains to be seen—of tackling this problem. However, will the Government he able adequately to help young people who have extremely negative images of themselves and of the written word? If those people are not helped, many of them will continue not to claim benefits. The knock-on effect of that is that some may be driven to crime. Educational failures tend to become economic failures and they tend to be attracted to crime. Such people may lead miserable lives. The Government have said that they are trying to help such people, but they cannot do that unless they establish a procedure to address this problem of basic understanding that I have described.
I hope that the Minister can give us a positive reply on this matter. If the Government do not address this matter, their policy will have a big hole in it. A sympathetic approach is needed based on expertise. Difficulties will also arise in persuading the people I have mentioned to attend interviews. If they are not on the phone and they have problems with understanding written texts, it will be difficult to contact them to invite them to attend interviews. This problem affects a sizeable minority of the population. I look forward to hearing a sympathetic response from the Minister.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord. Lord Morris of Manchester, for instigating this short—. but vitally important—debate. MENCAP and its sister organisations in the rights lobby are much concerned. that successive governments have seemed more: interested in stopping abuse than encouraging take up and, on this score, I welcome the efforts made by the Government to improve benefit take-up. We all await with keen interest the outcome of the pilot projects investigating why so many older and disabled people do not claim benefits to which they are entitled. As the Age Concern campaign, Your Rights, indicates, we are talking about rights, and it is sad that unnecessary complexities and the constant harping on fraud come between people and those rights. The concept of a guaranteed income for elderly and disabled people is welcome. However, the guarantee is of no use to those who are not there to collect it—and a million or so people who should be there, quite frankly, are not., There are good points in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill now being debated in another place, but it also takes away benefit rights from both contributors and non-contributors. I hope that the reduction in rights to widows' benefits, incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance will not be seen as enhancing take-up by reducing entitlement.
Unhappily, the point upon which I wish to concentrate is what the Government are doing to ensure that fewer people receive benefits to which they are entitled—or, rather, benefits to which they thought the, / were entitled. Which leads me, with impeccable timing, I hope, to Whitehall's longest running farce—and title—the State Earnings-Related Pensions Scheme.

505
When I was at the Whitehall Theatre I described farce as tragedy with its trousers down, which seems to sum-up the pickle in which the current government now find themselves in regard to SERPS; their trousers are well and truly around their ankles, removed by a previous administration, while many a future widow, and not a few widowers, are faced with the tragedy, or at least the classic unhappy ending, of the reduction in their anticipated pensions when bereavement strikes after 5th April next year.
Edmund Burke coined the phrase "economy of truth". Governments collectively have been very economical with the truth in relation to SERPS. I would love to hear Burke's current "Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents" and I am now holding in my hand but a few of the thousands of discontents forcibly expressed in letters which Age Concern and I have received over this whole shoddy business.
The 1975 Social Security Pensions Act created the right for a widow to inherit her late husband's earnings-related pension and was well publicised in leaflets NP33 and NP34, issued by the DHSS in January 1978 and respectively headed, Pay a little more now for a great deal when you retire and A More Secure Future, which promised,
"Widows will be given all their husband's pension rights if they are widowed over 50, or at any age while they have a young family to support".
Hundreds of thousands of people took the Government at their word and stayed in the new state scheme, while many had no option but to stay between 1978 and 1988, for their employers did not run occupational pension schemes. One such person was me as a salaried employee for the first time in my life of MENCAP. I am aware that the leaflets claim that they should not be taken as a statement of the law, but this was the law at the time these leaflets were issued. There was therefore a legitimate expectation that future pensioners' contributions from April 1978 to 1986 constituted a quasi-contractual relationship which was subsequently reneged upon by the 1986 government. I must point out that most other government changes to SERPS have affected only those rights accruing after the date of the change, not those rights already accrued.
What Parliament gives, Parliament can take away, but the government which prompts Parliament so to do surely has the obligation to inform people of the change. In another place, Mrs. Margaret Beckett demanded this in 1986 but, deliberately or stupidly, officials, on behalf of successive governments, have not only failed to tell contributors of the change, they have positively assured them that there has been no change. At no time have I, and thousands like me, received any notification whatever about the cuts. I, and thousands like me, have telephoned and written to the DSS—some as late as March this year—and all received the same bland assurance that our basic pension and our additional pension would go, intact, to our wives when we died. However, it now seems that if I die after 5th April next year my wife will lose more than £1, 200 per annum. I hope she does not take Margaret Beckett's advice in 1986 to put a pillow over my head on 5th April next
506
year. To replace £1, 200 would now cost £20,000 invested in, say, an insurance bond. Many will lose more, costing more to replace. How many pensioners can afford such a large amount of capital? Precious few, I warrant.
A final point. This Government are committed to sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights, which is reflected in the Human Rights Act. This stops the Government passing legislation that reduces individuals' property rights. In the context of pensions, property rights are interpreted as accrued rights. Thus the changes to SERPS spouses' benefits, cutting back accrued rights, should not be permissible at the present time under either the Convention or the Act, when that comes into force.
I hope that the Minister can say a little more tonight than she could, or would, on 13th April. The Government could pre-empt the Ombudsman's likely conclusion that the DSS has also been caught with its trousers well and truly down by stating that those who started their contributions at the beginning of SERPS in 1978 will receive their benefits in full, while those who went blithely on after 1986, believing the 1975 Act still applied, will receive their benefits in full for the next 13 years to take account of the period from 1986 to 1999 when the DSS dissembled with such devastating results. By doing this and acting as an honest broker, the Government can ensure that they are, as the Motion suggests, taking action to increase the take up of social benefits. Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth—and if we OAPs are not yet in heaven, we are certainly in the waiting room and deserve a little sympathetic consideration.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Morris on initiating this very important Question. It is in line with his generous philosophy of fighting for disabled people and I commend him most warmly to the House.
I do not intend to comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, except to say that I am very glad that he mentioned the previous government and their responsibilities. It would be a terrible mistake to make this a single-focus attack on the present Government when the previous government were responsible for a great many of the problems.
In the few moments at my disposal I intend to focus on disability benefits, for obvious reasons—partly because disabled people are sensitive to their disabilities and to their "right" to claim. I find it astonishing that £6 billion of disability living allowance should be unclaimed. I am afraid that, in part, the Government are responsible. I readily agree that we need strong action against cheating, but the Government seem obsessed with the issue of fraud. Far too many Ministers seem to be neglecting the constructive, positive aspects of disability and focusing narrowly on fraud. I exclude my noble friend Lady Hollis—she is one of the finest Ministers in the Government—but some Ministers talk far too frequently, far too often, far too publicly, beating their breasts, about how they are attacking cheating.

507
I do not know why they cannot tackle cheating and start stating publicly that people who have the right to benefits should get them. They should change the whole emphasis of their work. They could tackle fraud without a great deal of song and dance, and they could stop creating a very damaging atmosphere for disabled people.
My noble friend Lady Hollis disagreed with me at Question Time when I said that, given the power of the Government's publicity machine, with political will the problem of under-claiming could be solved overnight. Of course it cannot be solved overnight—that was a figure of speech—but it can be solved very quickly if the Government have the political will. We need a sustained campaign and a different theme. The theme of "benefit scroungers" should be changed to "Do claim. It is your right".
When my noble friend rejected my arguments the other day, she listed four difficulties: first, knowledge of eligibility; secondly, assessments; thirdly, the application forms; and, fourthly, understanding what the benefit is about. The third and fourth are interconnected. It is not appropriate for a disabled person to try to assess whether he or she is eligible. If the disability is leading to extra costs, then the person should claim and eligibility should be adjudicated by others. That simple message should be pursued by the Government.
I recognise the complexity of application forms, mainly because disability itself is so fantastically complicated and has even more consequences. Nevertheless, every effort should be made to simplify the application forms as much as possible. I commend that suggestion to my noble friend.
On that same occasion, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, suggested different application forms for physical and mental disabilities and for those with learning difficulties. That is a sensible suggestion. I hope that my noble friend will consider it sympathetically. Perhaps she can tell the House what consideration she has given to that valuable suggestion.
Hand in hand with simplifying application forms as much as possible, the Government should strengthen the advisory service. The most frequently used advice service are the citizens advice bureaux, a first rate organisation which is grossly underfunded. Why cannot my noble friend get hold of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ask him to give the CAB a mere few million pounds—not £100 million or £1 billion but a couple of mill ion pounds—and ask the CAB to give special training and seek local publicity on entitlement to benefits and why disabled people should claim. If my noble friend is able to do that in conjunction with the citizens advice bureaux and with the help of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we could make a very big difference to the take-up of benefits.
7.52, p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when I came into the Chamber just before the beginning of this debate the House was engaged in debating property rights. I will not express an opinion on property rights in a debate which I have not followed but I think one may argue
508
that there is a rather stronger claim for saying that property rights are involved here and, what is more, the property rights of rather more people.
The delivery of social security benefit to those who are entitled to it and the non-delivery of social security benefits to those who are not entitled to it are both a matter of justice. With regard to either of those forms of justice, one should never forget the other. I wish to join the tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for initiating this debate and to the Minister for a long-standing and constructive concern with this subject.
I shall not quote figures because I understand that the take-up figures are in the process of being revised and that a new series of take-up figures are to be published next month. So anything I say may be overtaken by events. But it is clear that, generally, the worst problems of take-up tend to be with income support, the worst problems with income support tend to be with pensioners, and the worst problems with pensioners tend to be with female pensioners. To try to change that, one must think about why it is happening.
Sometimes it is pride. One cannot legislate against pride, and one should not, but one should be careful in judging government rhetoric not unnecessarily to rub pride the wrong way. I am not sure that governments always remember that quite as well as they should. There may be difficulties with access, especially in rural areas. I will ask the Minister, not for the first time—the question runs the whole of the way through the debate—to consider whether the change programme is really working as it was intended. It may be a matter of difficulty—my noble friend Lord Addington said a great deal on this subject that needs attention—or it may be a matter of stigma. Here, again, the Government need to be careful of their rhetoric. Phrases like "welfare dependency", or that unfortunate phrase in the Green Paper about property not being cured by cash handouts, when heard by people on benefit, sometimes have an unfortunate effect.
Technically, subject to the European Convention on Human Rights, one way in which this could be tackled is through data matching. I heard the Minister speak with great eloquence on this subject in the previous Parliament. I should like to know how much is being done on that front. I understand that a housing benefit pilot is in progress in Birmingham. That is extremely constructive. Rhetoric needs attention.
I agree with the thrust of all the remarks that have been made so far about the priority given to fraud. In an interview with The Times on 4th March the Secretary of State said:
"The prevention of fraud has to be at the top of everything we do at the DSS".
Granted that it is of vital importance, surely the top priority for the Department of Social Security is the delivery of benefit to keep people alive; and nothing else should allow a Secretary of State to forget that.
I am also concerned about the minimum income guarantee. I do not know whether it is properly described as a guarantee. My honourable friend Mr. Webb has referred that question to the Ombudsman. I shall be interested in his

509
answer. I am concerned about some of the efforts on verification which may tend to delay the delivery of benefit at times when it is quite vital for people to have it, especially the demand for national insurance numbers while the national insurance computer is not yet working. We have in progress some pilot projects on housing benefit where housing benefit is not delivered until a national insurance number is made available.
A Written Answer to my honourable friend Mr. Rendel said that the average time for delivery of a national insurance number is 17 days. If that is accurate, I know a great many unfortunate people. That is perfectly possible and it illustrates the fallacy of statistics. An average time may be a very reasonable figure but with this many people, if 10 per cent. are well above the average there may be a serious problem. A great deal of evidence from local authority sources leads me to suppose that there is, especially in the effect on partners of people with an entitlement who do not get the national insurance number.
I should like to draw attention to one other point. I refer to the number of cases found by the citizens advice bureaux of social fund applications where people are not even allowed to make an application because the Benefits Agency's staff will not give them the papers to make the application. They say, "Oh, you wouldn't get it", so they weed out the application before even the information is available. The National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux is monitoring that. It believes it to be a widespread problem. If so, I think the Minister might be as eager to deal with it as I am. I look forward to her comments on it.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for initiating this important debate. In one sense one might say that we have rounded up all the usual suspects who are concerned about this issue and I think it is also true to say that we are all on the same side. We all want to improve the level of take-up.
One always speaks with great diffidence on these debates, given the amount of experience on all sides of the House not only with regard to the disabled, a feature which noble Lords have pursued, but also more generally. In a sense, however, my own experience in these matters is not short-lived. Thirty-three years of constituency nights, on Fridays, provided me with quite a good background in this subject. I well remember when I first arrived in Worthing as a constituency MP. Often, elderly ladies in well-cut but well-worn tweed suits would tell me of their difficulties. When I asked what the problem was, they would tell me that they were living on their national insurance pension. I had great difficulty in believing that anyone could live on that amount. I remember saying, almost on bended knee, "Please apply" for what was then termed supplementary benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, spoke of pride in relation to these matters. That is part of the problem. To use the term "stigma"is to underestimate the problem. Certainly, over the years it has been less of a problem. It has been easier to persuade people that they are entitled to such
510
benefits as of right. There are many other areas, not least lone parents, in which one's experience over the years makes one realise that it is sometimes difficult to persuade people to apply for the benefits to which they are entitled. I was surprised at that time to discover that Worthing had the highest illegitimacy rate in the country, which was an odd statistic. So I have a breadth of experience in these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, rightly drew attention to the excellent booklet from Age Concern which I received a couple of days ago: Your Rights. It is written in straightforward, simple English. It should help in encouraging the take-up of benefits. I would draw attention to just one point. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. It relates to the problem that has arisen as regards SERPS. We all recognise that it is a long-running problem; it has faced governments of both political parties.
It is also something of a mystery how this disaster, as it must be described, for a large number of people has come to pass. It is important that arrangements to deal with it should now be produced by the Government. I know that the noble Baroness is working on that. If this booklet is being circulated, perhaps there is a case for the inclusion of a single-page insert explaining the problem and that it is hoped to deal with it. The matter is referred to on page 18 of the document, but there is no mention that the Government are considering the matter. That is a relevant point.
Turning to the broader question of take-up and to the point made by the noble Earl, there is some doubt about the figures. It was said that, so far as concerns income support, some 1 million people a year are estimated not to be taking up the benefits to which they are entitled. I believe that the figure is now being re-examined and that the latest estimates are significantly smaller: somewhere between 700,000 and 400,000. Perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm that. Revised estimates are expected in May 1999—in a few days' time. I wondered whether in reply to this timely debate the noble Baroness would tell us the extent to which the take-up figures have been revised. I understand that a number of pilot schemes have been set up in an attempt to establish the extent of the problem. Therefore, I wonder whether we shall receive during the course of the statistical review a breakdown as regards the reasons why there is not the level of take-up that all of us would like to see.
Another government publication suggests the problem is partly one of "stigma", partly unawareness of entitlement, and partly difficulty in comprehending the application process, a point made by both noble Lords on the Liberal Benches. I hope that if the Government have carried out a full investigation into this problem, we shall receive the breakdown into those three categories. It did not require great investigation to realise that they are the likely categories, but the extent to which each is felt to be responsible for lack of take-up is important.
Another matter that has been raised a number of times during this debate is the question of fraud as against take-up. To some extent there is a conflict between the two. The more stringent the attitude taken, perhaps

511
rightly, with regard to fraud, the more complex, onerous or intimidating the application process becomes. That is apparent in the government document: A new contract for welfare: safeguarding social security, which is primarily driven by the argument in relation to fraud. Page 9 of the document indicates an approach that is very much in terms of: legal obligation to produce identity, the idea that it is easy to forge such documents and income support will not he paid until all the evidence has been recorded, and so on. I fear that to some extent the need to prevent fraud, on the one hand, and the need on the other to ensure that people readily apply is a split between the Department of Social Security and the Treasury, or the other way round. The noble Baroness shakes her head. I have previously expressed concern about the extent to which that is taking place.
Another aspect is the take-up of opportunities for making provision for old age, or whatever the particular problem may be. Alas, I see that the clock is already at the seven-minute limit which we are told we must observe. I shall therefore not go into the matter in greater detail. I merely say that these are real problems. We all seek to solve them and we must hope that in working together we can improve on the figures. At all events, if the Government have almost completed their survey on the causes of low take-up, we must hope that it will provide us with a better basis than hitherto for solving this set of extremely important problems. They are of great significance to many: certainly to the disabled, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, but also those on pensions, income support and so on. This has been a helpful debate. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
8.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the points raised in this interesting, informative and indeed conciliatory debate. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I thank in particular my noble friend Lord Morris for providing the opportunity to raise these points.
As we have heard from all speakers, the subject of the non take-up of benefit is extremely complicated. With some benefits, for instance child benefit and the retirement pension, take-up is thought to be almost universal. The position as regards the take-up of income related benefits is very different. The same benefit is taken up to different degrees by different client groups. Equally, we know that with the more complicated benefits—and, as my noble friends Lord Ashley and Lord Morris said, DLA is especially complicated—the take -up is at its lowest.
The department collects routinely the take-up statistics only for income-related benefits. It is worth reflecting on the latest data, published last autumn. As the noble Lord identified, as did the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we need to correct an error concerning pensioner take-up, where a glitch in the system misconstrued some income streams as they were converted from the Family Resource Survey into the department's computers. Nevertheless, the broad push of the figures illustrates the points that have been macle in this debate.
512
For example, while we estimate that with income-related benefit the total amount not taken up could range between £2 billion and £3 billion a year, nearly all couples with children and lone parents take up their cash entitlement of income support and housing benefit, and most take up their entitlement to council lax benefit. That, however, compares with family credit, where only 69 per cent of couples and 79 per cent of lone parents take up their entitlement, although their cash entitlement—the percentage of cash claimed—is somewhat higher. In other words, people tend not to claim when the amounts of money involved are quite small. Even so, this is not a satisfactory picture. However, I am sure that it will improve as we move towards working families' tax credit.
The Cinderella of means-tested benefits is council tax benefit. We believe that take-up by expenditure is between 76 and 82 per cent. We also believe that nearly half of all owner-occupiers who are entitled to council tax benefit do not claim, although the sums involved may be quite small: £2, £3 or £4. The particular difficult]., lies with the take-up of the two benefits addressed this evening by my noble friends: disability benefits and income support for pensioners. I only hope that when talking about disability my response matches the experience in this area of my noble friends Lord Morris and Lord Ashley.
As a government, department and individual. Minister we very much want people to take up the benefits to which they are entitled. There is no plot to restrict access o or information about benefits in a subversive way so that the Treasury can exercise control over public expenditure. That is certainly not the case. But benefit rules are complex and people do not always understand where their own needs match the benefits. Not only are the rules complex but they change, and many people do not know what triggers an entitlement. For example, many people may suffer a drop in wages because of a reduction in hours without necessarily realising that they are entitled to family credit, housing benefit or council tax benefit. Many in low paid work do not realise that they may be entitled to housing benefit.
I take as an example attendance allowance. I now know that my father, in his late seventies, was certainly entitled to attendance allowance. I was then a senior city councillor and did not realise it. If that was the extent of my ignorance how much greater is it in the case of a single elderly person who is isolated at home and without presumed access to knowledge about the system?
We are often pressed as to whether we should be making the system more complex, but the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, identified sensitively the need to ensure that the money goes to those who are entitled to it and that there is take-up. In particular, as one moves into means-tested benefits—we see it with the growth of housing benefit and some disability benefits—the problems of fraud are matched equally by the difficulties of take-up. I have always emphasised—I am glad that my noble friends acknowledge it—that there is virtually no evidence of fraud in DLA. I was always happy lo confirm that in the Benefit Integrity Project any difference in the figures resulted from people's condition changing without claimants necessarily knowing that that altered their entitlement, rather than fraud as that was understood.

513
However, I am sorry to say that there is certainly fraud in housing benefit, usually practised by landlords who invent fake tenants rather than tenants themselves. There can be fraud, intentional or not, when lone parents claim benefits although they are cohabiting or people claim JSA and earn money on the side. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was exactly right. There is no divergence of view between the Treasury and DSS. If people know that others who should not be receiving benefits claim them it rots the general faith in the welfare state. It is not just about money going to the right places. People will claim if they know that the money goes to those who are entitled to it and that it is the decent thing to do. But if some manipulate the system and boast of it and are then labelled by the tabloids as fraudsters it is not surprising that an elderly person who is unsure about a claim will not want to expose himself or herself to that situation. It is a difficult tightrope to tread. At all times we must ensure that not only do we have adequate controls to deal with fraud, because fraud there is, but that we do not use language, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, quite rightly said, to create a disincentive to people who are entitled to claim.
I turn to the main concerns raised by my noble friends Lord Ashley and Lord Morris. I believe that the capacity of my noble friend Lord Ashley to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer is infinitely greater than mine and I invite him to take up the crusade on my behalf.
In the case of disability living allowance and attendance allowance, my noble friend Lord Morris was right. We believe that there are perhaps only 30 to 50 per cent of people who claim the care component of DLA who are entitled to it; perhaps 50 to 70 per cent who claim the mobility component; and perhaps 40 to 60 per cent who claim attendance allowance, which is care without mobility. If the take-up rate for DLA and AA increased to 90 per cent—together with my friends I would be cheering if that happened—expenditure on those benefits would rise from about £8 billion to over £13 billion. Therefore, there is an under-claim of £5 to £6 billion by disabled people whose needs entitle them to that level of benefit.
Why is take-up so low? Our research suggests that there is a variety of factors: lack of knowledge about the benefit (for example, my father was in that position) and a disinclination among older people to claim assistance for what they may see as disabilities that they associate, often mistakenly, simply with ageing. For example, many people progressively lose their sight as they get older. Most elderly people have progressive hearing loss as they grow older. Many of them would be entitled to claim as deaf or blind under the regulations but do not do so because they see it as part of the process of ageing. Equally, the benefits themselves, particularly DLA, are complicated. Elderly people in particular remain baffled as to why there is not a simple read-across from the severity of disability to DLA, but we know that DLA uses a care and mobility test as proxy for the additional costs associated with severe disability. But if they can manage perfectly well without the need for care and mobility, however severe their disability they are not entitled to DLA. This baffles people who do not understand why two people with similar disabilities, but whose capacity to
514
manage them and the degree of dependence on care and supervision is different, may end up with very different levels of benefit.
Part of it may be related to claim forms. As my noble friend Lord Ashley suspected, we are working closely with the Disability Benefits Forum to try to simplify forms. The building block of DLA has been a diary of how an individual disabled person sees his or her life and the need for care and support. Such a diary is inevitably reasonably detailed and requires a number of pages on the form. One cannot get the full information needed with very simple forms that require four or five answers. I understand that my noble friend does not suggest that.
I was asked whether we were following up the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, to have separate forms for different types of disability, in particular different physical and mental health disabilities or learning difficulties. That is being pursued with the Disability Benefits Forum. We want forms that get the balance right so that we have full information on which we can make an award without such complexity that it deters disabled people from applying. But the particular difficulty of the proposal of the noble Baroness is that very many disabled people suffer from more than one type of disability. Therefore, one would be asking them to repeat the information. But we are looking at this matter and working on it with the DBF to ensure that we get the process right.
It is also right that many of those who claim DLA and AA—perhaps 50 per cent—end up not getting an award. I repeat that that is not because there is any suggestion of impropriety or fraud but because of the complexity of the DLA rules. I stress that if people have been refused DLA this year, because the condition may change next year—the illness may be fluctuating or deteriorating, like MS—they should reapply to ensure that they get the awards to which they are entitled.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about the single gateway to work. One million disabled people tell us that they want to work. The 2 million or so people on incapacity benefit have at one time been in jobs, and many tell us that they want to return to work. Under the single gateway we invite all of them to an interview where they first meet a generalist adviser. If it is clear that they have special needs, such as disabilities, learning difficulties, language difficulties, dyslexia and the like, they will be referred to the appropriate specialist adviser.
The 12 pilots started in June, which will be extended in November, are working with voluntary and private assistance precisely so we can ensure that we learn how best sensitively to address those who are not simply the happy-go-lucky 18 to 24 year-olds who hitherto have got away with JSA and we are now encouraging into work but perhaps lone parents with children, disabled people or those with learning or reading difficulties who can get access to help.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the point I sought to make related to the general problems of the section for a person with literacy problems. I appreciate that the noble Baroness was addressing more the disability side.

515
Sensitive handling at the initial interview of an adult with literacy problems would encourage integration into the system. That was the main thrust of what I said.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I take every point the noble Lord made, including the fact that if we rely on letters for contact we multiply the problems.
I shall ask my officials to write to the noble Lord stating to what extent dyslexic and literacy problems are covered in the specialist training of the advisers after the point of entry into the single gateway. If he is not satisfied perhaps he will come back to me on it.
Over and beyond the problems of disability and its take-up, we also have the problems of income support. Many noble Lords raised the issue today. Perhaps as many as 700,000 pensioners could be entitled to income support but are not claiming it. Perhaps I may say this in response to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Numbers have come down partly because of the glitch in information. But we are also finding as we undertake the pilot schemes that one of the biggest single reasons for people below income levels not claiming their income support is the high level of savings. Of 600,000 people not claiming the minimum income guarantee, well over half have savings of over £20,000 and something like 200,000 (a third) have savings of over £50,000. If people are not willing to draw on their savings, they may well be living on income below that of income support.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, one knows only too well from one's constituency experience that the savings issue causes a terrible problem. Having saved all their lives, those people feel that this is their final fall-back position and are reluctant to run it down.
Will the noble Baroness confirm that there are to be new figures out in May on pensioners not taking up the benefit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am expecting so. But the figures were partly due to a technical problem, and the fact that we were revising downwards. I take the point, but it is a little hard to justify someone with a capital of £50,000 having income-related benefits which are designed for the poor. If they choose not to draw on those they may well have a living standard below that of income support levels and not be entitled to income support top up.
Some pensioners who are failing to claim may be entitled only to a very small amount. However, pensioners, in particular single elderly widows, may be missing out on sums of £15 to £20 per week. As noble Lords have already identified, the pilots are showing a problem of ignorance, complexity, stigma, or the fact that they may have applied for a benefit in the past, been rebuffed, and thought that somehow they had no entitlement in future. We have been working on pilots. The results are not happy ones. We have not vet identified satisfactory ways of getting to elderly people benefits to which they are entitled. We are looking at piggy-backing on the attendance allowance, data matching, and at points at the 70th or 80th birthday. We are working actively in all those areas. We are working
516
with local authorities. However, there is as much reluctance to claim as there is a willingness on our part to encourage people to claim; and we have a long way to go.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked me about widows' benefits. I am sorry; I cannot add anything beyond what I said last time. We inherited the problem from the previous administration. In 1986 the government changed the rights of widows to SERPS and failed to notify anyone about it for the next 10 years. We picked this up last autumn and set about immediately analysing the size of the problem, our legal responsibilities and what they may entail. But I am afraid I cannot add to what I have already said.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the NINO pilot schemes. Those are pilot schemes based on the fraud Act which the previous administration introduced. The local authorities volunteered for this work. We believe that relatively few people are affected by it. Most people claiming council tax benefit are already claiming another benefit which is their passport, or identification, for this benefit. Few need to rely on NINOs alone. The pilot schemes that we are handling with the local authorities are designed to show precisely what problems there may be. If, as the noble Earl suspects, there are deeper problems than we have so far identified, we should be able to pick them up before the scheme is extended nationwide. That is the point of it.
Time is running out. I have done my best to answer questions asked by noble Lords. As I said, there is no hidden Treasury agenda to deny people information about benefits to which they are entitled. We believe that benefits unclaimed are a right that is foregone and we would not wish people to do so. Disabled people in particular, and elderly people on income support, are those losing out most. I hope that your Lordships will join with me in ensuring that they receive the benefits to which they are entitled.

House of Lords Bill
8.24 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have had a long and interesting debate on many different aspects of Clause 1. I do not propose to go over those again now. although some of my noble friends may have one or two points to raise.
Clause 1 is the heart of the Bill—the very essence of the Bill (if that is the right expression). My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew expressed some anxieties about how the clause may or may not work, and may speak further about that.
I note that under the Explanatory Notes the Bill states that the Baroness Jay of Paddington, referring to section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, stated:
"In my view the provisions of the House of Lords Bill are compatible with the Convention rights".

517
I hope that the noble Baroness is right. There is a problem—I hope that it can be resolved quickly—arising from the European Convention on Human Rights. When, or if, the Bill is passed, virtually all hereditary Peers will cease to be Members of this House. Quite rightly, they had no vote at the last general election and will not now be able to vote until the next general election. Therefore, for the period between the coming into force of the Bill and the next general election they will not exist under a government to whose election they have contributed. I am advised that that is doubtfully legal under the European Convention on Human Rights. I wonder, therefore, whether the noble Baroness was not a little hasty in attaching the certificate to the Bill. I hope that she will be able to assure us that that is not the position.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, during the course of the Bill I wonder whether I was alone with the sad suspicion that the Government were not listening with much care, if at all, to the arguments addressed to them on this clause. It is clear that I was not alone because we have heard my noble friends Lord Peyton and Lord Ferrers making much the same point. I feel the position so keenly that I wish to make clear to the noble Baroness and other Ministers that I have been listening to their argument.
That is simply done because the Government have only one argument: it is called the manifesto. I cannot think of any more persuasive way of demonstrating that I, at least, have listened to the Government's argument than to read the manifesto. At the end, I rather hope that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and others will not shout "Hear, hear" because the purpose of my reading it is to show that I have already heard. The material passage is as follows:
"As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute".
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: That shows that noble Lords have not been listening to my argument. The right to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute.
If I have described that pledge as the heart of the matter, I reckon that I shall carry with me the agreement of all noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite. When formulating legislation it is important to make the language used relate to the heart of the matter.
I regret that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not here. No doubt he has other pressing business. I indicated to him that I wanted to make some mild criticism of his speech last Tuesday in particular in response to Amendment No.10A, the new clause. I am sorry he is not here because he has made it abundantly clear that it is important for legislation to get to the heart of the matter. As we established last Tuesday, he was kind enough to write a letter to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, indicating that, whereas the parliamentary draftsman had considered a number of alternative
518
approaches to securing the purpose of the Bill, he had selected the language of the Bill because he wanted to get to the heart of the matter.
I am glad to see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor now in his place. I was saying that on Tuesday we had elicited that the Lord Chancellor sees great virtue in getting to the heart of the matter in the language used in legislation. He convinced us as much in the letter that he kindly wrote to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, explaining why the draftsman opted for the language that we now have before us in Clause 1.
However, on Tuesday I was one of those who enquired, appropriately humbly, why the Bill does not identify the heart of the matter in the same language, when the expressed manifesto pledge of which I have already reminded the Committee—I say that for the benefit of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—was to end the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords? I asked then and I ask now: would it not have been clearer, would it not have been safer, for the Bill to have done that?
The contributions from this side of the House made it clear that we are not considering the merits of the Government's policy. That is quite a different matter and we spent a long time on that at Second Reading. However, we are looking at the quality of the language and we are seeking reassurance that the language gets to the heart of the matter. Instead of focusing on the right to sit and vote in this House we now know that Clause I refers to the membership of the House of Lords by virtue of hereditary peerage. The clause says that that shall come to an end.
I diffidently enquired, and do so again: would it have been safer and clearer and would it have avoided the prospect of future litigation and considerable expense—to say nothing of trouble—had the Government said, "We shall think about it; we attach no magical meaning to the language of the Bill and we shall see whether, had we employed the language of the manifesto"—to which the Government refer endlessly—"that might have achieved the purpose more closely and more clearly"?
It is worth remembering that the new clause—Amendment No.10A—gets to the heart of the matter by operating upon the Writ of Summons. It says that no hereditary Peer shall receive a Writ of Summons to this House. That was only an idea. It seemed good at the time. After the reply from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor it seemed an even better idea to me. That idea was simulated by the protean mind of the Lord Chancellor in stating to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that the language had to get to the heart of the matter and that accounted for it.
The idea in my mind burgeoned as I read, as the Lord Chancellor has read, the opinion of Mr. John Lofthouse, Treasury Counsel in peerage matters for the past 10 years and, therefore, no slouch. I now realise that I was a little ungenerous in saying, a moment or two before the Lord Chancellor joined us this evening, that I sadly suspected that he had not listened with much care to any of our arguments because he showed he was listening at that part of the argument when my noble

519
friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish., understandably, asserted that Mr. Lofthouse was a Queen's Counsel. The Lord Chancellor started his reply with a correction of that understandable mistake.
That does not affect the issue one way or the other. I defer to Mr. Lofthouse's expertise in such matters, as I did when I was Attorney-General and had the benefit of his advice when seeking to call out of abeyance the Wharton peerage. I certainly defer to the expertise of Mr. Lofthouse now, even though—I regret to confess—I have been a Queen's Counsel myself for 27 years.
Unhappily, I am not aware that the Lord Chancellor addressed any other aspects of my noble friend Lord Mackay's reply with anything like the same acuity. I was heartened by the intervention, after I had spoken, of the noble and learned Lord. Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, a distinguished former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. He was kind enough to say that he agreed with me 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". —[Official Report, 27/4/99; col.160.]
I was heartened by that and the more so because the noble and learned Lord cites the words of Lord Chancellor Cranworth in the Wensleydale peerage case. Lord Wensleydale was a Lord of Appeal and had been appointed by a Patent that stipulated that he should have a life peerage only. There was a very long case about it in the Committee of Privileges in this House. He cited the words of Lord Cranworth, a predecessor of the present Lord Chancellor:
"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".
That seemed to me to be significant and persuasive. I was heartened because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, is, as I feel sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor knows, a distinguished expert on peerage matters, particularly in Scotland. Therefore, it was correspondingly disappointing for me that when taxed with the point put by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur—a point which the noble and learned Lord, out of mere inadvertence I am sure, had hitherto ignored—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor avoided it (I can find no other word) with the phrase:
"I have no intention of getting involved in arcane questions of peerage law". —[Official Report, 27/4/99; col.170.]
When thinking about that afterwards, I found it very difficult to avoid the word "high-handed" in describing that reply. It is true that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not dismiss the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, as being merely a retired Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, but it seemed to me that it would have been appropriate to have dealt with the merits of the point that the noble and learned Law Lord had made.
In those circumstances, it would not have cost much to take a little time to consider the point afresh, rather than merely assert, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did, that:
"the ordinary man in the street and the judges will have no difficulty in construing",
520
the concept of membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage. It would not have taken much time to have said, "Let us think about this a little further". Indeed, I am not surprised that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, is not in his place if that is how he is treated by the head of the judiciary.
The ground for the confidence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor seems to he additionally in the fact that the Government have made their intention clear, even if the Government have not, for some unexplained reason, adopted the language of the holy manifesto. Perhaps they feel that because they have made clear their intention and their belief of what the language they have employed achieves that will be that if push comes to shove.
I concede that that may help. In winding up, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor once again took the opportunity to assert his and the Government's intention. But Pepper v.Hart does not provide any government with a wholly reliable "golden pass" conferring upon them immunity in having the language that they got Parliament to use from being construed according to the court's view of its natural and ordinary meaning. It is not a wholly reliable golden pass. The judges will be inclined to hold that the language and not the Lord Chancellor embodies the law.
In conclusion, I submit that to cleave through an unnecessarily unclear and uncertain formulation with the argument that, "In any event, we can work a Pepper v. Hart", is no way to invite this House to legislate. We on this side have argued for the avoidance of doubt, but I fear that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has seemed more concerned with the avoidance of any revision of this Bill.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, it seems to me that with each passing hour in Committee this Bill becomes ever more extraordinary. It fascinates and confuses me. The Government stand on their conviction that it is a creature of exquisite simplicity. And yet I cannot help feeling that as we have scrutinised it, that simplicity has unravelled before our eyes, not least in the opinion of Mr. Lofthouse.
With all humility and deference—I am not a lawyer—I suggest that notwithstanding the Government's apparent obsession we should not be too concerned with how the courts may or may not construe the Bill as enacted. It should be a matter of what the Bill actually says. We are a Chamber of legislative scrutiny. Our first duty, irrespective of party—and it is especially so because of the operation of the Salisbury convention—is to ensure that legislation is drafted as accurately and clearly as possible.
In Committee in your Lordships' House we should not be overly concerned with the Government's overarching purpose; that is to say, what the Bill means. As the Government and their supporters delight in pointing out, "We all know that anyway"—aside from which that point is readily established by the grant of a Second Reading for the measure, albeit qualified by the acceptance by your Lordships of the amendment of the

521
noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. Although manifestly some of us do not like it, this House has embraced the underlying principle of the Bill.
What is therefore at issue in Clause 1 is whether the drafting achieves this underlying principle. I am bound to say that from my admittedly layman's perspective, not only the opinion of Mr. Lofthouse but also a number of concerns expressed by noble Lords, introduce an element of doubt which has yet to be adequately and convincing rebutted by the Government Front Bench. For example, I was intrigued by the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to Amendment No.10A. To my mind, it included three distinct interpretations of Clause 4(2), one of which was an accurate reflection of one of the elements of Mr. Lofthouse's opinion. Breaking my own dictum, I wonder how the courts might construe that.
That leads me to another thought. As hereditary Peers, our duty to this Bill is to preside over our own execution at the same time as correcting the terms of our own death warrant. I concede that it is a theatrical metaphor, but that does not make it any less accurate. It is essential therefore that the Government accept their duty in turn to furnish the Committee with substantive and adequate responses to the queries that so many of your Lordships have raised. It saddens me that there are grounds for supposing that thus far that has not entirely been the case.
My exasperation with this has curdled to something more pungent. Like it or not, today we, this whole House, are still a House of this Parliament. Where is our duty to be done if all we are greeted with by the Government Front Bench is the blithe repetition of the revolving prayer wheel mantras: "It is in the manifesto"; "The Bill is solely and exclusively about the hereditary peerage"; "It is a stand-alone measure"? Need I go on?
I accept that such points have a legitimate place in the scheme of things, but the reality is that we are now addressing the detail of the Bill, and that is our right. The Government, while they may disagree and while they may not like it, are being probed on specific points of substance. This autistic reflex does not win arguments. Bluntly, it is irritating. It is simply not good enough. It invites the conjecture that the Government, in their cabal of strategy or tactic meetings—I concede that I am never certain of the distinction between the two—have the perceived wisdom along the lines of, "You don't actually have to bother replying to anything. Just stonewall. Just put up the shutters. That will do the trick". I repeat that it really is not good enough.
The fact of the matter—an awful cliché, but it seems well-beloved of the Government Front Bench—is that bar one or two of the amendments of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and myself, as revealed by the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, last week, the Clerks have advised all Members of the Committee that the amendments they have tabled are in order; they are germane to the Bill. Some may be of more substance than others, but they all merit proper scrutiny and, crucially, adequate replies from the Government Front Bench, replies that actually address their subject matter, replies that go at least some way towards answering the concerns that Members of the Committee are expressing. To do anything else is to demean the
522
Committee. This is a Bill that shouts out for intellectual rigour, and it gets the argumentative squalor of the nursery.
We on these Benches, like noble Lords opposite and elsewhere in the Committee, are moderately intelligent. We can grasp when we are being sold a pup. I invite noble Lords opposite to dwell on this. If Front Bench Members of these Benches had sought to adopt this sort of approach when we were in office—perhaps they did; I would not know—noble Lords opposite would have been, quite rightly apoplectic, incandescent with rage.
I am bound to say this. I have no intention of maligning noble Lords opposite, but there has been a sense during the passage of the Bill so far that some of the Government's Back-Benchers have derived some perverse satisfaction, some delight, in supposing that the hereditary peerage and these Benches generally may have given the impression of being little more than rabbits caught in the glare of headlights. It is precisely this symptom of reducing the legislative function of the House of Lords to a branch of the "yah-boo" politics of another place—after all, we are led to believe that this is antipathetic to the Prime Minister's "third way"—that causes so many of us such concern. It is a vision of the rubble to which the centuries of history of the House of Lords will be reduced.
The House is nothing if it cannot maintain its traditions of courtesy and its duty of legislative scrutiny. Inevitably, these rely on trust. It is this trust that enables us to be a self-regulating House. But trust is a two-edged sword. It is worthless unless all sides subscribe to it. If all that is to happen when amendments are moved in all seriousness, in all honesty and in a spirit of inquiry and an intention to be helpful—I repeat that the Clerks have accepted the great bulk of those amendments so far tabled—is that the Government will dismiss them with the ritual recital of their rehearsed mantras, that trust is, in effect, withdrawn. We are all—I include noble Lords opposite, because what is certain is that we always reap what we sow—the poorer for that. We are all wasting our time.
I am a mild-mannered individual. I comment thus not in anger but in pained weariness. But the provocation on this issue, and not only in the Bill, has become too great to ignore. At the very least the Government should come clean, and if they cannot address the points raised they should say so. At best—and I acknowledge that in the current climate this may well be wishful thinking—the Government should be prepared to recognise that, in this of all issues, they are servants of the House of Lords.
It may be that we who are hereditary Peers are about to be the road kill which the Government want. But until such time as the Bill is enacted we continue to be Lords of Parliament, with all the rights that that status accords us. We continue to be wholly legitimate Members of the House of Lords.
In my relatively short time here I have come to recognise, in a way that I never could from an outside perspective, that Parliament belongs to its membership. That is especially the case with respect to the House of Lords. After all, advanced as the virtue of

523
"independence", it is something that has permeated so much of our discussions about reform. And, insofar as it remains the case, it means that we deserve substantive replies to the issues we raise, not this whining clockwork from the spin doctor's work-bench. It really is not good enough.
In conclusion, I simply wish to say that it may or may not be that the Lofthouse opinion has substance. The Government have not established the case one way or the other. Rather, our Committee proceedings so far have revealed that the elements of doubt introduced by them, and other matters of substance raised by other noble Lords, some of them very considerable, call into question the construction and formulation of Clause 1.
I do not for a moment say that we should strike Clause 1 from the face of the Bill. The Government still have time and the opportunity to address the concerns that have been expressed in order to deliver their nirvana of legislative clarity. But without that I could be tempted to a view that it would be both irresponsible and beyond the Committee's competence to accept the Bill as drafted. It would be a dereliction of duty to enact a measure where so much doubt exists as to whether or not it is capable of delivering its stated purpose.
Lord Northfield: I hesitate to intervene, because I am not a lawyer, but I am surprised at the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. He said first that the Government Front Bench did not listen. Those of us who have sat through the Committee stage so far must give full marks to our Front Bench for listening carefully and replying to a whole lot of amendments which are way outside the Long Title of the Bill and only just squeeze in within the general intention of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord knows from his experience in the other place that in the House of Commons nearly all those amendments would have been ruled out of order, as being way outside the Long Title.
Therefore, all that we have really been having is continuous Second Reading speeches and amendments which do not touch on the real heart of the Bill. To every one of them, to my knowledge as I have sat here this week, our Front Bench has given a very careful, courteous, considered and lengthy reply. The noble and learned Lord has no right to say that the Front Bench has not been listening and has not been replying.
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord said that it was extraordinary that the Government had not considered alternatives. He cannot have listened to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who said quite clearly in my hearing, "We considered all the alternatives. The parliamentary draftsmen considered all the alternatives and came to the conclusion that the way we have taken in Clause 1 is the correct and sensible way. We have considered them all, but we came back to this as the most appropriate. " It is not right for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, to say that they were not considered. That was directly contrary to what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had carefully told him about what had actually been done.
524
I now come back to the basic statement of the noble and learned Lord and others who say that the most important thing in this matter is the Writ of Summons, and the statement by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, that the right to sit here depends on receipt of the Writ. The condition antecedent to receiving a Writ is to be a Peer. A Writ cannot be issued to somebody who is not a Peer, either a life Peer or a hereditary Peer. That is the present case; a Writ can be issued only to someone who is a Peer of one kind or another. Receiving a Writ is something that happens by virtue of being a hereditary Peer. As Clause 1 says, we take away that condition antecedent, and the hereditary Peer no longer has the right to receive the Writ and be a Member of the House of Lords.
I cannot understand why a lawyer of the eminence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, could not understand that the procedure starts by being a Peer and not by simply receiving a Writ. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is quite right to say that the simple way is to legislate, in the words of Clause 1 which states,
"No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage",
by what flows from being a hereditary Peer. That is simple, direct and quite clear. I hope that the Committee will realise that the situation is merely being dragged out, yet again, by Members of the Committee opposite in order to make more Second Reading speeches. With very great respect, we have really had enough of them.
9 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: With the greatest humility, perhaps I may add to the Second Reading speeches. if that is what the noble Lord likes to call them. We are dealing with a highly controversial Bill; of course we are. It is a Bill which affects the constitution. It is quite right for your Lordships' House, as it is for any chamber, to scrutinise it. But whenever we scrutinise it, Members of the Committee opposite say that we are making Second Reading speeches. With respect, that is not so.
Perhaps I may add that if there is a controversial Bill going through your Lordships' House, it would be a great help if there were some happiness, pleasure and smiles on the faces of the Members on the Government Front Bench. On the whole, they have been glum. That does not help the case. They should at least show that they are in favour of the Bill being discussed.
I suggested earlier—and I hesitate to suggest again—that if the Government are altering the constitution, and they are, then it is quite right for the Chamber to consider that and to consider the effects. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said it is quite clear that the object of the Bill is just to get rid of hereditary Peers and that is that. Actually, that is not that because one must look at what is the effect. The effect is sometimes very different from what is expected. It is quite right for the Opposition to say, "Look, this is what we think. What do you, oh Government, think?" I say with great respect that the sad thing about Clause 1 and all that we have discussed so far is that we have not had answers to the questions.

525
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, tried to give an answer. He said that you can receive a Writ only if you are a Peer and therefore, if you get rid of the Peers, there will be no Writ. That may well be the answer, but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not say that. I should be grateful if he would address his mind to the point that, as I understand it, we are all here by a Writ of Summons. Whether one is a life Peer or a hereditary Peer, it is the Writ of Summons which brings us here. Once here, the Writ has fulfilled its duty. It summons the person to Parliament and is put on one side. I would like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to say how it is that the Government can say to some Peers, "The Writ which brought you here at the beginning of this Parliament can last for the whole length of the Parliament for some Peers but only last for part of the Parliament for other Peers". Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will answer that question.
It seems to me—and I say this with the greatest humility—that it verges on being hybrid if a right is taken from some people but the same right is not taken from all people.
I fear that the diktat which the Government have given to the Government Front Bench is that they must concede no amendments. I can understand that. The noble Baroness seems to be querying that. I am delighted. That is how it looks at the moment. They are told to concede no amendments and to concede no arguments either. If the noble Baroness and her colleagues would say, "Noble Lords opposite have got a point here which we have considered but we think that for this, that and the other reason noble Lords are wrong", we would understand that. But we are merely told, "That is in the manifesto and that is what we are going to do".
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Earl but I have heard this argument several times on the amendments which have debated this afternoon; namely, that the Government are not prepared to accept any amendments. I ask the noble Earl and other Members of the Committee to consider what the position has been for some months, has been during the course of discussion of this Bill on Second Reading and will be when we consider the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, with all its implications, and whether or not that does not suggest that the Government are prepared to accept substantive amendments.
Earl Ferrers: That is one step forward. I wonder why the Government did not accept the amendment in the House of Commons. It was tabled in another place and they did not accept it. Therefore, is the noble Baroness saying that this is not a Bill, as the manifesto says, to get rid of all hereditary Peers but is a Bill to retain 100 hereditary Peers? That is different. At present, the Bill before us seeks to get rid of all hereditary Peers.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I hesitate to intervene again. The noble Earl may not be aware, and I should say for other Members of the Committee who are not aware, that it was the Government's proposal that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, should be
526
taken on the first day of Committee so that those matters could be addressed in precisely the way in which the noble Earl expresses them. Unfortunately, that was not agreed between the usual channels and, therefore, I agree that we are not discussing the amendment which could be central to the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: That is a very interesting point of view. But why did the Government not accept that amendment in another place? The fact is that the Bill before us seeks to remove all hereditary Peers. Now the noble Baroness says, "Actually, we made a mistake. We do not want to remove all hereditary Peers. We want to keep 100 of them". It is all very well for Members of the Committee opposite to wag their heads, but that is a very different state of affairs. Either the Government want to get rid of all hereditary Peers, which is what the Bill says and which is what the House of Commons passed, or they retain 100.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Earl is getting us going! He is doing it very well. I know that he will acquit me of any discourtesy if I say that I rise to my feet because I feel that I am about to get going, and I am going to get going.
But he expressed a certain amount of puzzlement about the Bill. I certainly recognise a strong duty to relieve him of any sense of puzzlement that he has. Perhaps I may explain to him, with very great respect—as we lawyers say—simply this. Of course, a Writ of Summons has a certain consequence in law apart from the effect of legislation. I really do invite him to accept, because I am sure that he is as great a respecter of the sovereignty of Parliament as I am, that Parliament can legislate as it chooses in relation to a Writ of Summons which has been issued for this Parliament. It can provide that those who are here by virtue of a Writ of Summons may be excluded pursuant to Clause 1. That is the prerogative of a sovereign parliament.
Under Clause 4(2) a sovereign parliament is entitled to provide that a Writ of Summons which has not been responded to in this Parliament shall be null and void. I suggest to the noble Lord that inadvertently his argument questions the sovereignty of Parliament.
Lord Kingsland: Before my noble friend responds, has the noble and learned Lord not considered the retrospective effect of Clause 4(2) on those who have received a Writ of Summons? They did not have a vote when they received this Writ of Summons, in return for which they sit here. If Clause 4(2) is passed, in my submission, and with the very greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, its passage will not only contravene the European Convention on Human Rights as retrospective legislation; but it will also, in the great traditions of our own constitution, be unconstitutional.
Lord Glenarthur: Before the noble and learned Lord responds once more, I am delighted that he said he is getting going. On Tuesday, in answer to my question he said:
"I have no intention of getting involved in arcane questions of peerage law". —[Official Report, 27/4/99; col.170.]

527
It seems to me that this is very much the subject of the Bill, arcane and difficult as it may be. It may be something with which the noble and learned Lord does not want to tangle. However, if he is saying that, is he also saying that peerage law is somehow outside the overall ambit of the Bill? Is it not subject in any case to consideration by the courts and interpretation of its wording, if that is what the noble and learned Lord wants it to be? He cannot really have it both ways. He either wants to get going or he does not want anything to do with it. Which is it to be?
The Lord Chancellor: The short answer to both interventions is that Parliament is sovereign and in this case the Government are carrying into effect the manifest will of the people.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may be allowed to continue my speech!
A noble Lord: Start again!
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, but I would not filibuster, not even at the invitation of noble Lords opposite.
The noble and learned Lord very kindly said that I got him going. If I achieve nothing else. that is a great achievement. To see the smiles on the faces of noble Lords opposite, and even on the face of the noble Baroness—which must be the first time since the Committee stage commenced—is a great achievement.
These are serious points and the Opposition have a right to put them forward. This is an alteration to the constitution. We may not agree with what is being done. There are plenty of people outside who say hereditary Peers should stay and that we should get rid of the life Peers. That is not a view that I necessarily hold. Certainly I would not subscribe to it in this House. However, such view s are held and people are concerned..
Perhaps I may try to persuade the noble and learned Lord that despite all the fuss and brouhaha about life Peers versus hereditary Peers, which is a pretty disagreeable battle, we do want to try to help the Government in so far as ensuring that what gets on to the statute book is right.
I am glad the noble and learned Lord addressed the point regarding the Writ of Summons. He may well be right. We may think he is wrong. It is quite right for us to point it out to him and say, "Look, we actually think you're making a mistake. What a pity it would be if the Government were taken to court and were found to lose. "
The fact is that many people have said, and the noble and learned Lord said this earlier, that everyone knows what the Government intend. I hesitate to say this to such an eminent lawyer when I have never even entered the portals of that profession—much to my regret—but when matters come to court, they are not decided on the big issues: they are decided on the minutiae and the detail. That is why it is right to get the details correct.
The manifesto, as we have heard so often—it has almost become a Holy Grail—spoke of the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords. But I pointed out that one of the effects of the Bill is that people of the eminence of,
528
for instance, my noble friend Lord Carrington, who has achieved a great deal for this country, will not be allowed inside these premises. Why? Because he happens to be a Peer. It is an offence to discriminate against sex, against gender and against colour, but apparently it is perfectly all right to discriminate against birth. My noble friend has given a great deal to this country and yet when this Bill is passed he will not only not be allowed inside the Chamber, but inside the House. That is a great pity.
For all those reasons Clause I needs looking at again. For the first time the noble and learned Lord shakes his head in assent, and I assume by that he means he will look at it again and for that I shall be grateful.
Lord Goodhart: My recollection is becoming a little hazy by now, but I feel that we had exactly the same debate the day before yesterday. I made a speech expressing my views on that occasion; I have no intention of pressing the replay button and delivering it again. And I express the hope that other Members of the Committee will follow my example.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I can intervene at this stage and other Members of the Committee can intervene after me in due course. I will try to follow the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and not make a Second Reading speech. In fact I intend to be very brief.
I greatly welcome the fact that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will be responding to this discussion. I am sure that in the course of this debate she started off on her own without any advice from either the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or her noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, or even the noble Lord, Lord Williams—not that he is learned in the terms of this House—who seems to have been spirited out of the country. I dare say we will see him back in due course.
No doubt the Leader of the House has had some expert legal advice from her noble and learned friends and will be able to respond in due course. From my point of view I cannot respond as my noble friend the Leader of these Benches did the other day, starting off by saying, "Dealing with these arcane points of law". That was how he put it. He was not a lawyer. I am a lawyer, albeit not one of any eminence. I was called to the Bar, but sadly never proceeded any further. In the absence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I am tempted to say that I would like to go further. I might even put in my application to take Silk at some stage and perhaps the noble Baroness will convey that to her noble and learned friend in due course.
A number of points have been put by those on these Benches who are much more learned in the law than myself.
Lord Peston: Hear, hear!
Lord Henley: Those are points that need answering by the Government and we hope that the Government will answer them in due course, in particular those raised by my noble friend Lord Kingsland and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew dealing with retrospection. It is important that that specific question is dealt with.

529
I said—and got a degree of "Hear, hear!" from the noble Lord, Lord Peston—that I did not know much about the law. The noble Lord can now say "Hear, hear!" again if he so wishes.
Lord Peston: My remarks were intended to doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, did not know much about the law. I assume when I make a similar remark that he really knows a great deal about what he is saying.
Lord Henley: I hope that the noble Lord will pass that back to his noble and learned friends and perhaps they will view my application for Silk in due course with some consideration. The fact that I do not practice will probably count against me but, similarly, I make no criticism. In fact, I have never made criticisms about the noble Lord as an economist, but we can discuss that in other debates.
What little law I do know suggests that a certain number of questions have been raised and we must consider whether it is enough that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor simply declares that what he says is what the Bill means. However loud and however often he says that, it does not take the doubt away from many on this side and from those who have written learned opinion on the subject. We have heard, both inside and outside this Chamber, that expert opinion exists. We heard from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that he has a lack of readiness to look at arcane questions of peerage law. However eminent the Lord Chancellor is, how can he be so sure that he is right and others, even if they are not Queen's Counsel, such as myself, or the drafter of this opinion, are wrong?
I hope for his sake that the noble and learned Lord is right. If not, when the law is challenged and found wanting, I suspect he will be like that unfortunate young man in the Edward Lear limerick, which I am sure many noble Lords will remember:

"There was a young man in a boat

Who cried, 'I'm afloat, I'm afloat'.

When they said, 'No, you ain't',

He fell down in a faint,

That unhappy young man in a boat".

As I said, a number of questions have been raised. I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will be able to respond to those questions—questions put by lawyers much more eminent than myself.
Lord Grantley: I wish to support the plea made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that this legislation should be correctly drafted. Many people have had the advantage of reading the opinion given by Mr. John Lofthouse, which was much referred to on previous occasions. The noble and learned Lord said that he had had the advantage of having known Mr. Lofthouse for 10 years in his capacity as standing counsel for the Treasury on peerage law. I have the advantage of having known him for 25 years since we were at Oxford together. He was a great authority on peerage law then and undoubtedly is a great authority, perhaps the greatest authority in the land today, in that respect. Therefore,
530
I think that the opinion he has given should be considered extremely seriously so that the legislation can be correctly and accurately drafted.
I am not a lawyer myself but I have had some regrettable experience of the law courts as a litigant. I can give Members of the Committee one example which I believe to be germane to the question of construction; indeed, I shall be extremely interested to hear the answer. Some years ago, in my capacity as a landlord of a house, I sought to terminate the tenancy of a tenant whose tenancy had come to the end of its contractual term. The tenancy had been granted when I was not the landlord but the resident beneficiary of a trust which was the landlord. The relevant Housing Act clearly intended that the resident beneficiary of a trust which was the landlord should have the same rights as a resident landlord. However, when the case came to court, I lost it because the legislation did not absolutely express that situation. In other words, what the court said was, "We know very well what the intention was, but that is not what the law says".
As I understand it, the response which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given to the questions very rightly raised by the noble Lord. Lord Trefgarne, and the noble and learned Lord. Lord Mayhew, is that it does not ultimately matter exactly how we have drafted it because everyone knows what the intention is. We do indeed know what the intention is but, for goodness sake, let us have it correctly drafted. I urge and beg the Government to consider very seriously the points that have been made in relation to the defective drafting of the Bill and to come back with a considered redraft, which at least gives proper effect to their clear intentions.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I can agree with two comments that were made by those who have opposed the question that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that this clause goes to the heart of the Bill; indeed, that is the case. I can also agree with the noble Earl, who seems no longer to be in his place—although I thought he was opposed to the inclusion of the clause—that the passage of the Bill becomes ever more extraordinary.
As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, this clause goes to the heart of the Bill. Therefore, as the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip seems to find it somewhat peculiar that I should be sitting on these Benches without support, perhaps I should respond to him in the most friendly fashion and say that, if it is the heart or the centre of the Bill, it is surprising that neither his noble friend the Leader of the Opposition nor the Deputy Leader, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, are here to take part in the debate.
Lord Henley: I appreciate that the noble Baroness was supported soon after the debate began, but I was merely expressing doubt because she seemed to lack legal support at the beginning. I have my noble friend Lord Kingsland with me. He is not learned in terms of this House but is, nonetheless, very learned in the law; and I need him.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Frankly, I do not take that point because I am sure the noble Lord does not

531
expect me to come to this debate or indeed to any other proceedings on the Bill without obtaining previous legal advice. I am making the political point that if, as noble Lords have suggested—and as I would agree—this clause is the heart of the Bill, I would have expected noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench to be better represented.
I should just respond to those noble Lords who have complained, if I can use that rather strong word, about the attitude of the Government Front Bench to the amendments which have been tabled; and, indeed, about our facial expressions, as was the case with the suggestions made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. We are now on the 24th group of amendments on the Bill. We are at the end of the third day of the Committee stage. In practice, in the proceedings on most normal Bills—and I have taken the advice of my noble friend the Chief Whip on this—one would expect that to be an average day's business in this Chamber. As I say, we have reached the third day of the Committee stage of this Bill and we have considered 24 groups of amendments.
Lord Henley: I remind the noble Baroness that she is the Leader of the House, not the leader of her own group. I hope that she is not in any way accusing this side of the Committee of a filibuster. If she is, I remind her—there has been no filibuster—of the activities of her party back in 1971 on the Industrial Relations Bill that had a Committee stage which lasted for some 21 days.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I had no wish to raise the heat of this discussion. I simply pointed out to those noble Lords who accuse the Government Front Bench of not taking the detailed consideration of this Bill seriously that we are indeed making progress. However, it has been slow progress because the Committee has properly considered the detail of this Bill. That is why the Government Front Bench feels it is an inaccurate observation to say that this Bill is not being taken seriously.
I return to the heart of this Bill, which is indeed Clause 1. Everything in this Bill flows from it and without this clause the Bill has no meaning. I gather from the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk—who has now returned to the Chamber—that he does not intend to divide the Committee on this Clause. Were he to do so, that would be a complete breach of the conventions of this Chamber. It would indeed be the equivalent of a vote again st the Bill on Second Reading. The effect of this clause—
The Earl of Northesk: That is precisely why I made the point that I did.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: That is why we accept it. However, I shall reply in precisely the way that I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, will feel is an appropriate response to the detailed points that have been made on Clause 1. Perhaps it will be helpful if I first of all repeat what the intent of this clause is, as there appears to be some confusion here.
532
The effect of this clause is that no one in the future shall be a Member of your Lordships' House by virtue of a hereditary peerage. I shall return later to the question of the Writs and the points that were addressed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I emphasise to the Committee—I hope this meets the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who again mentioned the case of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—that that is not necessarily the same as saying that no hereditary Peer shall be a Member of the House of Lords, as they, like everyone else, will become eligible to receive life peerages. I am happy to confirm that, as I did in the debate on Amendment No.6 of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and today in the debate on Amendment No.30 of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is not present at the moment.
As is explained in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, the effect of the clause is comprehensive. I appreciate that the Committee well understands that, given the terms of the amendments which we have discussed. However, for the purposes of clarity—and, I hope, finality on this point—I repeat that this clause applies to all hereditary Peers, whether in the peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom, and whether they are male or female, Royal or non-Royal, Peers by succession or Peers of first creation, holders of Baronies by Writ or in possession of a Patent of Creation, or sit by virtue of a Writ of Acceleration or by a peerage called out of abeyance. This clause marks once and for all the end of any automatic connection between a hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords.
Earl Ferrers: I ask a question for clarification. The noble Baroness was kind enough to say in response to my remark about people such as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, not being able to come here that such people could be offered life peerages. Who is eligible for life peerages and who grants the life peerages?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Noble Lords who at present sit by virtue of their hereditary peerages will, like every other citizen of this country, be eligible for life peerages. As I said in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who sought to include Privy Counsellors as hereditary Peers sitting in the reformed House, of course it would be entirely appropriate for any political leader who wished to recommend to the Prime Minister particularly distinguished Members of his Benches who sat previously as hereditary Peers—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would fall into that category—as suitable candidates for life peerages. It is a fairly straightforward point. It means that no one is excluded from the possibility of becoming a life Peer.
Perhaps I may answer another of the points of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. If as a result of the deliberations on the amendments to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, some hereditary Peers temporarily retain their seats in your Lordships' House, their right will no longer flow from their peerage but from their peerage in combination with a vote by other Members of the House.
As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and other noble Lords have mentioned, we have returned to matters which were addressed by my noble and learned friend on Amendment

533
No.10A. Some noble Lords have suggested that the clause does not achieve its effect because it does not operate directly on the Writ of Summons. I hope that noble Lords are now satisfied by the response of my noble and learned friend. We are confident that the clause is effective to achieve in law its simple objective, as, frankly, the overwhelming majority of those who appreciate it understand it, and those who have voted for the Government would agree. Of course the Government, too, have access to legal advice. That legal advice was taken when the Bill was drafted and has been taken during its passage. The Government's opinion of the effect of the Bill was extensively discussed on Tuesday and it has been presented to the Committee again today by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I would refer noble Lords who still have difficulty with this to the simple constitutional issue of the sovereignty of Parliament.
There is a sense on these Benches—I hope that noble Lords will not feel that it is either discourteous or dismissive—that we see a certain degree of—can I use the word?—"humbug"in trying to improve the Bill as noble Lords have suggested. For noble Lords sitting on the Opposition Benches to argue that they are seeking to make the exclusion of hereditary Peers more effective would seem to go against some of the arguments they have made in other cases.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. As she has effectively accused me and other noble Lords of humbug in putting forward our arguments, I wonder whether she would answer this question: what would be wrong, what would be inexpedient, in expressing the purpose of the Bill in terms stating that no one shall be entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords unless he or she has received a Writ of Summons? What would be wrong or difficult in adjusting Clause 4 to make it work—if that be the will of the Government, there is no question of parliamentary sovereignty—and making it retrospective? What would be difficult about that? That would meet the difficulties that we have seen, the difficulties that Mr. Lofthouse has seen and the difficulties that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, has seen. We have never had an explanation as to why that would be difficult, except that it would mean a change to the Bill.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: It would not be a simple semantic matter of changing the wording of the Bill. As my noble and learned friend took some trouble to explain—although noble Lords have suggested that he did not—the terminology of the Bill was crafted in the way that it was and written in the way that it is in order to embrace the widest possible concept of the membership of your Lordships' House. I cannot recall whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, was present at the time when this matter was discussed on Tuesday—
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I was present.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord. I said that I could not remember. I am
534
sure that noble Lords will remember that we then discussed at some length whether it was possible to define the membership of the House of Lords, the membership of the House of Commons or the membership of the Welsh Assembly. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, who was replying to those points on another amendment, said that he was quite sure that it would be impossible to find judicial agreement on how that membership should be understood; nevertheless, it was perfectly legitimate to describe. It could, as we have discussed several times, be understood by anybody with common sense and even, as he said, by the judges. So I think we really must accept that the Government have taken appropriate legal advice on this matter and this is how it has been decided to formulate the Bill.
Perhaps I may move on and try to be a little more precise about exactly what Clause 1 does. It removes the totality of the rights and duties which members of the hereditary peerage have in their capacity as Members of your Lordships' House. It removes the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords and in any of its committees, to speak in the House or to receive a Writ of Summons. It removes ancillary rights and any other rights which are connected with membership of the House. The clause will also deprive hereditary Peers of those privileges of membership of the House which we call "club rights".
Now I must emphasise—I hope it does not sound too bald: it is certainly said only to achieve clarity and not in any way to be aggressive—that the privileges that are allowed to Members by virtue of their membership of the House of Lords, as far as concerns club rights, will be removed. Sadly, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, is not in his place. Perhaps I may quote the words of his grandfather, the then Marquess of Salisbury, who said in your Lordships' debates on the Life Peerages Bill:
"This House is not a club; it is a place of legislation-. —[0flicial Report, 17/12/57; col.1231.]
I think we all agree on that; at least I hope we do.
Your Lordships are here to do a job of work. The facilities are provided to assist Members in fulfilling their functions. It would not be right to insist that hereditary Peers who no longer have any function in the House should still have the right to use those facilities provided by the taxpayer to support the work of Parliament.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question which arises out of that. Earlier today we debated the amendment of my noble friend Lord Marlesford about the position of Privy Counsellors. At present Privy Counsellors who are Members of the other place may sit on the steps of the Throne. What will be the position of the Privy Counsellors in this House who are hereditary Peers and are to leave?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I said that in our view it was not appropriate that Privy Counsellors should remain as

535
hereditary Peers but that they are, as I said earlier in response to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, eligible for life peerages.
Lord Trefgarne: Will those without life peerages be allowed to sit on the steps of the Throne?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I was going on to say—unfortunately, the noble Lord intervened once again—that this statute is not the appropriate place in which to discuss matters of that kind. Just as with the question of former Members of the other place visiting the House of Commons, that would be a matter for the administration of the House. If, once the Bill goes through, the House of Lords decided that as a concession it would extend the use of its facilities to non-Members or former Members, that would he a matter for the House. But it is not a matter for this statute.
Earl Ferrers: This is an important point. The noble Baroness said that hereditary Peers will not be allowed access to the House as a result of the Bill, yet the question of whether Privy Counsellors are permitted to sit on the steps of the Throne will be a matter for the administration of the House. If the Bill removes hereditary Peers who are Privy Counsellors, why is it that the administration of the House is required to decide whether they should be allowed back in again?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am obviously not being sufficiently clear. Perhaps it is because I am becoming confused by the different points which are being made to me. I shall try to explain. I was asked about arrangements for former Members of the House, whether they be Privy Counsellors or hereditary Peers who are not Privy Counsellors, to have access to the facilities of the House or to sit on the steps of the Throne, or indeed to have a cup of tea or go into the Library. That access will of course he removed directly by virtue of the removal of their membership through this statute. But the arrangements for former Members might indeed become a matter on which concessions were granted, by, for example, the Committee for Privileges or the Procedure Committee, in the same way that they have been in another place where, if I may explain what I understand the position to be, former Members of the other place who have served for more than 15 years receive a particular type of pass to the Palace of Westminster which lets them have access to some of the refreshment and other facilities but not necessarily to all of them. Those facilities are determined administratively by the authorities of that House. That is the consistent pattern that your Lordships could adopt in circumstances where hereditary Peers as a group were excluded from membership of this House. I hope that is clear. If it is not, I am happy to respond to further questions.
Earl Ferrers: I think it is clear; but it is not equitable. The noble Baroness is saying that, by statute, hereditary Peers should not enter the House, and hereditary Peers who are Privy Counsellors should not enter the House; but
536
it then remains up to the administration of the House as to whether the statute should be overridden and they can be brought back in. Is that correct?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: It is perhaps most simply expressed by saying that they will not have the right but it could be accepted by the administration of the House—the Privileges Committee or the Procedure Committee, whichever is appropriate—that a concession might be made if that were the will of the House. But that is not to say that their rights to membership of this House will not have been removed by this Bill. Perhaps I may—
The Earl of Northesk: On a related point, will the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal concede that the Bill does nothing in regard to what she has termed the ancillary rights of the Irish peerage?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thought I had made the matter clear earlier in my remarks. Perhaps the noble Earl was not present at that time. I listed the numbers of all hereditary Peers who were excluded for the benefit of those Members of the Committee who, by virtue of the amendments they have produced, seem to think that various types of exclusion are possible. Perhaps the noble Earl will read the official record tomorrow. If he has a further query, perhaps he will write to me.
The Earl of Northesk: I simply niake the point because the rights of the Irish peerage do not arise out of membership of this House in the terms in which the Government have presented it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I invite the noble Earl to read the official record.
Lord Strabolgi: Perhaps I may intervene. As a member of the Privileges Committee, I sat on the Farnham case when it came before the committee. The Irish peerage had the right, before 1920, to elect a certain number to attend the House. After 1920, those who had been elected were allowed to remain for the rest of their lives. They had all died by a certain date, after which no Irish Peer had any rights here at all.
Lord Henley: As an Irish Peer, perhaps I may intervene to make just one point. One right of Irish Peers survived; namely, the right, as with Privy Counsellors, to sit on the steps of the Throne, and to do no more than that. I point out to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that, when our rights are abolished and we all go, it seems that my noble friend Lord Northesk and myself, as Irish Peers, will continue to be allowed to sit on the steps of the Throne, but my other noble friends will be out completely. I offer that as an explanation to assist the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
Lord Strabolgi: The noble Lord, Lord Henley, does not sit in this House as an Irish Peer. He sits here under an English title.
Lord Henley: I am afraid the noble Lord is wrong. I sit here as a United Kingdom Peer. I also happen to have,

537
in the name Henley, an Irish peerage. I sit in this House under my other peerage, as Lord Northington. But if I am no longer entitled to do so, then, as Lord Henley, I shall be entitled to sit on the steps of the Throne, as will other Irish Peers. But time is moving on. To assist the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, I make a plea that, having referred to the most obscure and arcane points of peerage law, most noble Lords, myself included, would probably like to move on.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip for his help. Perhaps I may continue. I am not sure whether noble Lords sitting on the Benches behind me will be entirely happy with what I am about to say. However, I say it sincerely and with seriousness. The Government accept that for some Members of the House who will lose the role to which they are accustomed and access to the facilities of this House, it will be a serious disruption to their lives. I hope the Committee will accept that we have sincerely and genuinely expressed, on several occasions—I have done so at every relevant opportunity—our gratitude for the work that they have done and the sympathy that we feel at a personal level for those who are facing change. But it is a sympathy that one would feel for all those who were facing an enforced change of occupation or a lifestyle taken away that was of their choosing. But those are not reasons for compromising on the basic proposal that all automatic connection between the hereditary peerage and this House should be severed.
Although we may have sympathy for them, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that we are not concerned that their human rights are being affected. The noble Lord asked me whether the Bill was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Act of this Parliament which brings that convention into force because hereditary Peers did not vote in the last general election and yet they are to lose membership of this House before the end of this Parliament.
This point has been considered by the Government. The matter was raised in the other place by the Opposition. The Government believe that the Bill is compatible with Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the convention concerning free elections. Although hereditary Peers lose their seats in the House of Lords under Clause 1, under Clause 2 their disqualification from voting in the House of Commons is removed. Clause 4(3) makes transitional provisions to enable hereditary Peers to vote from an early date. I believe that hereditary Peers will be in the same position as others who were not entitled to vote at the last general election, for example those under 18. We believe that this meets the obligations under the Act.
Earl Ferrers: Can the noble Baroness say why, in view of her very generous and fulsome remarks about hereditary Peers, she doubts whether she will carry her Back-Benchers with her?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I was, perhaps regrettably, being somewhat frivolous. I simply suggested that the interventions that had occurred in the past few minutes appeared to demonstrate that the concerns of a
538
number of my noble friends about the relevance and worth of a great many hereditary Peers, and their natural sympathy and human concern for them, were perhaps being slightly undermined.
Perhaps I may seek to reassure the noble Earl. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn emphasised in response to an earlier debate on Tuesday—I repeat it for the sake of clarity—that this Bill does not abolish the hereditary peerage as such, although that shorthand has been much used by noble Lords in speaking to amendments. All the titles, precedence and other privileges not connected with membership of this House will remain. All that we are concerned with now is the right to sit in a legislature in a House of Parliament. Hereditary Peers can continue to be known by whichever title they choose, Irish or otherwise, as is already the case with Peers who are Members of this House. We had that debate in relation to my noble friend Lord Longford, who is not in his place, and other noble Lords who raised this matter, one of whom was the noble Lord, Lord Aldington.
Another matter of genuine concern is the sovereign's right to create hereditary Peers. That remains precisely the same. However, for the sake of clarity, no future right to membership of this House is conferred by the adoption of an hereditary peerage.
Perhaps noble Lords opposite will find my next point uncomfortable, in the same way that I suggested that some of my noble friends might have found my remarks uncomfortable. I believe that the majority of Members of this House accept that the day of hereditary membership of Parliament is over. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for putting it very clearly and directly in one sentence this afternoon in speaking to Amendment No.25 when he simply said that the day of the hereditary Peer was over.
I refer to my contribution to the original debate on this subject in October. In opening the debate I referred to the conversations that I had had with the hereditary Peers who sat on the Benches on this side of the House. I acknowledged their grace in accepting that their present role was over and that accident of birth gave them no claim to be Members of Parliament at the end of the 20th century. On this occasion I record my gratitude for their continuing support for this Bill and their very important contributions to these debates.
The other objection which has been raised consistently throughout the debate on the clause is that although people may say they accept the principle they continue to insist that our approach is wrong. One variant which has been spoken of a great deal, and moved most eloquently by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on Tuesday, is that hereditary Peers should be allowed to sit and speak but not to vote. That, it was suggested, would remove one of the Government's most legitimate grievances. It would indeed remove one of the more unacceptable political consequences of the present situation in which the noble Earl's party finds itself in such a majority, but it would not tackle the root of our objection to it. As my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said in replying to the noble Earl, our policy is that it is really a good idea to treat everybody in the country equally.

539
That is why the manifesto—and I do not hesitate to refer to it—committed us to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit as well as to vote.
The other line of dispute has been that the two stage approach is wrong: that the Government either have no intention of proceeding to or will not be able to deliver on the second stage; that until the second stage is before us we should not make any reform. We have heard that argument in many forms during the course of the debates on Clause 1. I should emphasise for clarity and simplicity and, I hope, to conclude this part of the argument, that we take the view that this first stage change is an absolutely essential preliminary to making any progress. We tried it the other way round in 1968. We discussed comprehensive reform in 1948. There was an inter-party conference in 1918. All agreed that the hereditary principle as a basis for membership of Parliament was indefensible. Yet we find ourselves in the middle months of 1999 still having the same debate.
I reaffirm that although we understand the emotional attachment that people have to the hereditary peerage as Members of your Lordships' House it is more than an emotional attachment because it has constituted, and does constitute, an enormous barrier to rational and focused discussion. That is why we have persisted with the intent and the purpose that we shall move through stage one. We shall clear that out of the way. As I said in response to an earlier amendment, there is one simple question: Do you think that hereditary Peers should continue to be members of the legislature in 1999, or do you not? Clause 1 removes the option of having any further debate on anything more complicated.
After that, the choice between the options for the future will have to be made on the basis of the merits of the alternatives that are then available. We genuinely believe—I know that some of the sincerity of the Government has been challenged today—that the chances of getting agreement to long term reform are considerably enhanced by achieving that first purpose; and then, we hope, agreeing a consensus on the way forward.
The Government believe, in the phrase that I used in an earlier debate to which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred recently (and I hope that it does not irritate him if I repeat it) that it is time to say to the hereditary Peers, "A sincere thank you, but goodbye". The rationale for their continued presence as hereditary Peers has, frankly, long since worn out. Forty years after the passage of the Life Peerage Act the argument for pragmatism is also exhausted. The Government intend to proceed with the Bill. We intend to proceed with it in the normal conventions of your Lordships' House by listening, and taking note of what people say. There is no intention on the Government Front Bench not to respond appropriately to points made around the House.
This has been an ingenious debate, but nothing in it has begun to convince me that the Government's approach is anything but essential if we are to make any progress with the long term reform of the House of Lords. I commend the clause, the heart of the Bill, to your Lordships.
Lord Rees: I have a question which I directed to a degree to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor
540
on Tuesday but I did not receive a satisfactory answer. If Clause 1 is effective and deprives our hereditary colleagues of a seat in this House, what is the point of Clause 4(2)?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am sorry if I did not make that clear. I made the point that that was in order to enable the hereditary Peers, who were prevented from membership by virtue of their hereditary peerage, from assuming their citizens' rights and enfranchising them.
The Earl of Erroll: Before the Lord Privy Seal sits down, I feel that she has not answered the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantley. Noble Lords keep quoting Pepper v. Hart. I understood that before Pepper v. Hart, the exact wording mattered in British law. In other words, the manifesto could not be put into the Bill because at this moment I am not sitting and voting; I am standing and speaking. Therefore, this situation would literally not have been covered.
I understood that Pepper v. Hart—this is a serious point—allowed one to take into account the debates that took place on both sides in deciding the intention of legislation when we were trying to comply with European legislation. In that case, can we rely on Pepper v. Hart to interpret all debates and ministerial replies in the way in which the Government would like? If we get it wrong, it will be wrong. That is what worries me.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I say to the noble Earl, as I said in my reply, that the Government have taken legal advice on this matter. Some contributions by noble Lords seem to suggest that we sat down in a restaurant and wrote this Bill out over a cup of coffee or something stronger. This Bill was constructed in the usual way, with enormously valuable legal advice. It is regarded as effective by my noble and learned friend and many others whom he consulted and whom the Government consulted. As neither the noble Lord nor I is a lawyer, I am prepared to stand on that legal advice and to defer once again to the sovereignty of Parliament.
Lord Trefgarne: I suggested, together with my noble friend Lord Northesk, that we have the debate on Clause 1 stand part. It is now time to bring that debate to a close. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her long and detailed reply to many of the points raised. Clearly she has not convinced very many noble Lords.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Trefgarne: If noble Lords opposite are convinced, then I am happy. Perhaps I may make one point. The noble Baroness referred to the fact that hereditary Peers are here by accident of birth. She should know that my mother takes great exception to that remark!
Clause 1 agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at two minutes before ten o'clock.

  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Pro bone Work: Legal Staff in Government Service
  Pro bone Work: Legal Staff in Government Service
  Falkland Islands: Lan Chile Flights
  Falkland Islands: Lan Chile Flights
  Council of Europe: 50th Anniversary
  Council of Europe: 50th Anniversary
  EU Growth and Stability Pact
  EU Growth and Stability Pact
  School Security
  School Security
  Military Low-flying Activity in the UK
  Military Low-flying Activity in the UK
  Operation Allied Force
  Operation Allied Force
  Clinical Toxicology
  Clinical Toxicology
  British Railways Board Land Sales
  British Railways Board Land Sales
  Organophosphate Sheep Dip
  Organophosphate Sheep Dip
  Intervention Board Annual Report
  Intervention Board Annual Report
  Fraud: National Police Objectives
  Fraud: National Police Objectives
  Human Rights Act 1998
  Human Rights Act 1998
  Criminal Record Certificates: Voluntary Organisations and Fees
  Criminal Record Certificates: Voluntary Organisations and Fees
  Balkan Refugees
  Balkan Refugees