Sitting of 23 February 1999

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

  Cashmere Knitwear
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: If he will meet representatives of the Scottish Cashmere Association to discuss current difficulties facing exporters of cashmere knitwear; and if he will make a statement. [70818]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): The Scottish Cashmere Association and the Scottish Borders Studio are providing regular briefing on the problem facing the cashmere industry as a consequence of the current banana dispute, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues are keeping fully in touch with the situation. The Government are doing everything possible through the European Union to solve this very serious problem, with discussions at the highest levels.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware of the extent of the fear and apprehension felt by cashmere manufacturers at the prospect of 100 per cent. penal tariff duties being imposed on 3 March on cashmere jerseys exported from Scotland to the United States? Unless the threat is removed, hundreds and hundreds of jobs will be lost in south-east Scotland, in addition to the recent losses, as a direct consequence of the American action. Will the Minister redouble his efforts to ensure that a settlement is reached? Will he and the Secretary of State consider using their access to the Prime Minister to try to persuade him to use his good offices and credit with the President of the United States to try to get the threat removed as soon as possible?
  Mr. Macdonald: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said about the unfairness of the threat to the cashmere industry. The Government are working with our European partners to try to bring about a positive resolution. We especially deplore the threat to introduce duties in March. The World Trade Organisation has set up a panel to try to adjudicate in the dispute; it is not expected to report until April, and no action should be considered until that has happened, but the Government will certainly continue working with our European partners.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I believe that everyone in the House would appreciate the deep
  162
  concerns about the implications for the borders, with the concentration of the cashmere industry in that area, but is it not also true that there is an impact elsewhere in the Scottish economy, including in the north-east, where we also have a cashmere industry and the food processing industry is equally under threat? Companies are trying to make their way into the 1999 Christmas market in the United States of America, so it is important that any conflict that affects them negatively is lifted. Will the Minister do everything that he can, not only for the cashmere industry, but for all the industries affected?
  Mr. Macdonald: I absolutely agree that it is equally unfair that the dispute should impact on other industries, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom and the whole of Europe. That is why we are taking the situation so seriously and are working so hard with our European partners to try to encourage a more rational approach from the American Administration so that we can resolve the dispute.
  Dr. Liam Fox: The whole House will be aware that the dispute is serious, not only for cashmere, but in a wider trading context. The Minister spoke about our European partners. What contacts has he made directly with his counterparts in the United States, and what contacts has the Prime Minister made with President Clinton on this serious subject?
  Mr. Macdonald: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we are working closely with our European partners. This is a matter in which European member states have to deal collectively with the US Administration, who are in no doubt about the British Government's views and the seriousness with which we take the issue.
  Dr. Fox: Has or has not the Prime Minister made direct contact with President Clinton on the subject? We hear a great deal, time and again, about the closeness of their relationship. When President Clinton was in personal trouble, the Prime Minister was there to help him out of the situation. It is not unreasonable to expect our Prime Minister to intervene directly with the President of the United States on an issue that affects an important industry and may have ramifications for other industries in a wider trading context.
  Mr. Macdonald: The hon. Gentleman is a noted anti-European, so it is understandable that he does not like the fact that we are working with our European partners to try to resolve the dispute, which affects not only the United Kingdom, but other European Union countries. The only way of resolving it is through direct discussions between the European Union and the American Administration, under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: What does the Minister think would have happened if the United Kingdom had joined the North American Free Trade Agreement, as Conservative Members urged? Is he aware that United States companies have 78 per cent. of the European banana market, compared with the Caribbean's 9 per cent., and that none of the bananas about which

  163
  there is a dispute are actually grown in the United States? What does that make him think about the reasonableness of the position adopted by the Americans?
  Mr. Macdonald: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point. The European Union banana regime is designed to comply with the World Trade Organisation regulations while honouring our commitments to those countries in Africa, the Pacific and the Caribbean with which we have relations through the Lomé agreement. We stand by those commitments.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Michael Moore: When the concordat on inward investment between his Department and other Departments will be published. [70819]
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): Concordats will be discussed and concluded between United Kingdom Government Departments and the Scottish Executive, rather than the Scottish Office. My Department and others continue to undertake sensible preparatory work ahead of those discussions.
  Mr. Moore: Many people in my constituency and across the borders will be hoping that the concordats that are drawn up are a vast improvement on the present regime. Much anger is felt in the borders about the way in which Viasystems is closing two profitable plants with the loss of 1,000 jobs and the fact that all the work is being transferred to other parts of the United Kingdom. Despite that, no Government agency has intervened to examine the substantial grants that the company received in other parts of the country at the expense of the borders. Will the Secretary of State accept that it is now time to hold a public inquiry so that we can resolve once and for all the real issues behind that sorry mess?
  Mr. Dewar: Of course, I understand the hon. Gentleman's dismay and anger at what happened in the Viasystems case. As he knows, I have discussed it with a number of interests in the borders, including those who have worked in the plant. He is wrong when he says that no attempt has been made to examine what happened and, in particular, the transfer of work to factories in other parts of the country. The Department of Trade and Industry has considered the issue exhaustively with much encouragement from my Department, and we have not found any technical infringement of the rules. It is a sad chapter, but the public inquiry envisaged by the hon. Gentleman would not be the best approach to it.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the Secretary of State publish the latest draft of the concordat on inward investment and will he tell us whether he intends to have a period of shadow running, as suggested in the guidelines on concordats published in February? If he does, will he consult the other political parties in Scotland before any period of shadow running commences?
  Mr. Dewar: I must confess that I have never been clear about what shadow running means. I am not a great shadow runner, or indeed a great runner at all. That is perhaps a personal sadness. I repeat what I have already said: we are
  164
  undertaking sensible preparatory work ahead of the discussions. I stress to the House that any agreement about the working guidelines—that is what the concordats are—between the United Kingdom Administration and the Scottish Administration is a matter for discussion between the parties. I would have thought that the Nationalists would welcome that. I notice from The Scotsman yesterday that Mr. Michael Russell—an important SNP apparatchik—was quoted as saying:
  "The Scottish general election will give the mandate for such agreements to be drawn up between Holyrood and Westminster. To have them drafted beforehand by civil servants, party apparatchiks and political hacks is not acceptable."
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether the concordats will, in principle, be subject to judicial review? Does he think that there is much chance that the concordats will emerge by consensus when a senior figure in the SNP is quoted today as saying:
  "the SNP executive is already made up with a proportion of so-called fundamentalists"?
  Mr. Dewar: I am never sure whether "fundamentalist" is a religious or political term, because it has a wide use. I do not wish to interfere in the private problems of the SNP, which have been illustrated by articles in the papers today. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but the concordats are ground rules, not legally binding matters. Therefore, I would not expect them to be in court.
  On the subject of consensus, I hope that everyone in Scottish politics will have the best intentions for the running of the new Administration and their relations with the United Kingdom. We all want to see the system work and I hope that it will be approached in a consensual manner. Even if differences arise, I hope that they will be discussed and settled amicably.

  Health Care (Glasgow)
  Mr. David Marshall: If he will make a statement about the Government's plans for providing improved health care for the citizens of Glasgow. [70821]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): The White Paper "Designed to Care" set out the Government's vision for a renewed and better health service in Scotland. Total Government expenditure on health in Glasgow this year has been almost £1 billion. Since we took office, we have announced extra capital of £52 million for a new maternity hospital, a plastic surgery and burns unit and an emergency receiving centre at Glasgow royal infirmary; £10 million capital for a new radiotherapy facility at Gartnavel hospital; £6.2 million to tackle waiting times and £4.7 million to tackle peak admissions over the winter. From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Marshall: In thanking my hon. Friend the Minister for that reply, I recall that I have raised this important matter with him at previous Scottish Question Times. I congratulate him on his splendid efforts to tackle the horrific health legacy that he inherited after 18 years of terrible Tory government. However, will my hon. Friend

  165
  guarantee that the twin evils of poverty and unemployment are taken properly into account when the tremendous inequalities in health that exist in the city of Glasgow, compared with the rest of Scotland and with the United Kingdom as a whole, are tackled?
  Mr. Galbraith: I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. One of the first things that I did when I took over responsibility for the health service in Scotland was to charge it with a new priority to deal with inequalities in health, in terms of both provision and access. As my hon. Friend will know, the White Paper on Scotland's public health recognises for the first time the link between inequality, deprivation and ill health. It proposes specific measures for tackling that problem, the most important of which is the investment of £2.6 billion to change people's life circumstances, such as their lack of jobs and education, and their poor housing and environment. Once that change is in place, we can affect people's life styles and build a healthier Scotland for everyone, and especially for people in deprived areas.
  Mr. James Gray: Some £45 million has so far been spent by the Government to reduce the absolute numbers on waiting lists in Scotland. However, will the Minister explain why, in my native city of Glasgow—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I was born in Glasgow and lived there until I was 21. It is very much my native city and, like the Secretary of State, I am a graduate of Glasgow university. Will the Minister explain why, when he came to power, only one person on the waiting list in Glasgow was waiting longer than 12 months, whereas, after a year, there were 348 people on the waiting list?
  Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not keep himself up to date. For the past three quarters, no one on the waiting list has been waiting for more than 12 months. He will also be aware that waiting lists in Scotland now total 78,500 people. That total is significantly lower than what we inherited and is the lowest this decade.
  Mr. John Maxton: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the health problems facing the citizens of Glasgow is the high incidence of dental decay, especially among young children, in the most deprived areas of the city? Does he also agree that the best way to solve the problem is to ensure the proper supply of fluoride in the public water system?
  Mr. Galbraith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter again. My answer remains the same as that which I have given him previously, and the matter is also dealt with in the White Paper. There are three ways to improve the nation's dental health: although people should reduce their sugar consumption and brush regularly, the most significant factor is to fluoridation of the water.

  Employment Opportunities
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: What steps he is taking to improve employment opportunities in Scotland. [70823]
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): The Government are supporting employment growth in Scotland by securing a stable economic environment based on low inflation and sound public finances. From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  Sadly, jobs sometimes go, but jobs are always being created. Seasonally adjusted data from the civilian work force jobs series show an increase of 33,000 in the number of employee jobs in Scotland in the period between June 1997 and September 1998.
  Mr. Canavan: Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to International Labour Organisation statistics, unemployment in the United Kingdom fell by 98,000 last year, but that in Scotland it rose by 9,000? That was before the declaration of redundancies at firms such as Wrangler, BP, Kvaerner and Volvo, and at places such as Bishopton. In the Falkirk area alone, more than 1,000 redundancies have been announced in the past month.
  When will the Government listen to people in industry who legitimately complain that interest rates and sterling are still far too high? Is it not about time that some senior Ministers were sent to places such as Falkirk to hold high-level crisis discussions with representatives of local people and business to try to devise an urgent action plan to save as many existing jobs as possible, and to attract new jobs through inward investment?
  Mr. Dewar: We want to attract as many jobs as we can to Scotland, and to encourage firms already operating in Scotland. I need not tell my hon. Friend that, since January 1998, unemployment in his constituency is down, though marginally so. I accept that there has been bad news in Falkirk, including the Wrangler closure. However, my hon. Friend will have read of the difficulties in that industry: Levi's for example, is closing half its capacity in America, laying off more than 6,000 people. The industry has significant market problems.
  My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the problems of job creation, but we are creating jobs all over Scotland, and the balance between jobs created and jobs lost tips to the right side. On the ILO statistics, I do not like any reverse gap between us and the rest of the United Kingdom, but the Scottish unemployment rate is well below that of large parts of London, Merseyside, the north-east and other parts of England. A little perspective would be rather more helpful than suggesting that the end of the world is nigh.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Has the right hon. Gentleman assessed the potential impact on employment opportunities in Scotland of a potential loss of objective 1 status for Scotland? Has he assessed the effect of losses in the farming sector through reforms in Agenda 2000? Are the Government likely to take steps to make good any job losses caused by those reforms?
  Mr. Dewar: I assume that the hon. Lady made a slip of the tongue in seeming to suggest that Scotland is entirely an objective 1 area. In fact, objective 1 relates only to the highlands and islands. We are keeping the matter on the agenda, fighting hard—with, I hope, her support and that of her hon. Friends—on grounds of gross domestic product per head, on which we narrowly miss

  167
  the present criteria. We are also using the Nordic rim and sparsity arguments in doing everything possible to try to retain objective 1 status for the highlands and islands.
  The hon. Lady will know that extensive beef production is affected by the shape of what may come from the Agenda 2000 discussions. We are watching matters closely, and Lord Sewel is with the UK delegation, which is united on the importance of the matter. The hon. Lady will realise that enlargement of the European Union and the pressing needs for budgetary stability and agricultural reform are among the difficult problems to be faced.
  Mrs. Irene Adams: Does the Secretary of State agree that when areas such as mine—the Paisley postcode area—have lost 90 per cent. of their manufacturing jobs, there is a great need for inward investment? For how many projects has Locate in Scotland been responsible during the past year, and how many jobs will they bring to Scotland?
  Mr. Dewar: If I remember correctly, there are 87 inward investment projects. I shall refresh my memory later in case—perish the thought—I am misleading my hon. Friend. Those projects have created a great deal of employment, and have also preserved many jobs. It is encouraging that more good news is likely in future. This week, for example, I visited Dingwall—an area which the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) knows well—to launch a 300-job plant promoted by a French company, Cap Gemini. That is particularly welcome, and there is much mileage in inward investment. Locate in Scotland has an absolutely first-class record and will continue to have the full backing of the Government.
  Mr. Donald Gorrie: First, will the Secretary of State consider stopping his present policy and that of his colleagues of blocking the employment opportunities sought by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) in the Scottish Parliament? On a wider front, will he consider using some of the funds that he has for training to create many hundreds of jobs insulating houses, preventing damp and conserving energy in homes? That is a labour-intensive activity, which would create many real and continuing jobs. It would not cost a great deal, but it would do a huge amount for the housing and health of the Scottish people.
  Mr. Dewar: Of course, I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of thermal efficiency and the house insulation programme. I should have expected him to remember that we are in the middle of a large programme of that sort, which involves about 50,000 houses. We certainly intend to work hard on it and I look for further progress. As he knows, we are also using the new deal and the opportunities that it provides to progress that work. It is important that we have job creation constantly in our minds. That is why environmental work, thermal efficiency improvements and the work of Locate in Scotland, which has safeguarded or created nearly 18,000 jobs with the 87 projects to which I referred, are all important and must be progressed to the best of our ability.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the importance for jobs of the Scottish tourism industry, which already employs 175,000 people in a £2.6 billion
  168
  industry, does my right hon. Friend agree with Lord Gordon that it is still important for the British Tourist Authority to continue to project Scotland overseas, particularly in view of the advantages of that promotion? Because the authority markets the whole of the United Kingdom, we in Scotland leave the advantage of such marketing from Greenwich to the Grampian, which can only make sense.
  Mr. Dewar: I agree with my right hon. Friend that we have to promote Scotland as a tourism centre in every way possible and on every scale. He will know that we have found additional money for the area tourist boards and have increased the funds of the Scottish tourist board overall, perhaps modestly but still significantly. In the area to which he referred, we have found money for Project OSSIAN—a database into which people key—which we hope will make Scotland a more accessible centre for world tourism and underline its great attractions and charms. I am strongly in favour of tourism as an important part of the Scottish economy. I was interested to note that Anne Lorne Gillies—I presume that she was not speaking for her party—a Scottish National party candidate and a member of cabinet told The Northern Times:
  "Don't depend on tourism, it's only the icing on the cake."
  That is rather undervaluing it.
  Dr. Liam Fox: When Labour-supporting newspapers such as the Daily Record have such headlines as, "The jobs graveyard", I am sure that it makes the Secretary of State take note. What is it about the Scottish economy that is causing unemployment to rise at present when it is falling in the rest of the United Kingdom? To return to the point made by the Secretary of State's hon. Friend, or, perhaps I should say, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), apart from the 250 direct job losses at Bishopton, what other jobs will be lost as a consequence of a closure that the Government could prevent if they wanted to?
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman should look at what is happening and not take the simplistic and populist approach, which I fear is his trademark and does him little credit. That is gentle advice, not a rebuke—I fear that a rebuke would be ineffective. I repeat that there are enormous variations in unemployment in England. It is higher in Merseyside, the north-east and London than in Scotland. I do not like high unemployment. Our unemployment level is, perhaps, not exceptionable compared with the levels that often occurred under Conservative Governments—I point that out merely as a comparison, not an accusation.
  Let us consider job creation. Even if one takes out one third of the promised jobs to allow for a shortfall, since we came to power we have been still more than in balance—we have a balance on the right side. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that things are bad and can only get worse, he should at least look at that perspective and recognise that that is so. I recommend a little more research.
  Ms Rachel Squire: From the 10,000 jobs lost at Rosyth and the closure of the Fife coal mines under the previous Government, I and my constituents, like many hon. Members, know only too

  169
  well the devastation that unemployment brings to local communities. However, when I visited Rosyth on Friday, at Lexmark I found a buoyant work force of 500 people and heard of plans for expansion and for a further 200 jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Lexmark is an excellent example of successful inward investment; and that it is a good example of the effective partnership that can be developed between a council such as Fife council, Fife Enterprise, Locate in Scotland and the Scottish Office? Will he say what other such projects currently in hand in Scotland might bring hope and new jobs to communities?
  Mr. Dewar: I have no difficulty in agreeing with my hon. Friend about the example she instances, which is important to her and lies within her constituency. New jobs are coming on stream: for example, I was happy to visit Standard Life bank recently, which had no employees 18 months ago, but now has more than 700, and the number is rising rapidly. One can find similar examples throughout Scotland. Like everyone else, we are having a tough time in our manufacturing industry and in some of our traditional industries, but a lot is happening that is good and positive and, as I said, the balance is on the right side.
  There are examples of difficulties arising, of which perhaps the best known are Mitsubishi and the problems at Prestwick, but the sort of co-operation which my hon. Friend describes between private industry, Government, local authorities and other interested agencies has fully replaced, or is in the process of fully replacing, the job losses that were experienced. Those two examples are hopeful signs of the times.

  Scottish Executive
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: What plans he has for a needs assessment to inform decisions on the size of the Scottish block made available to the Scottish Executive. [70824]
  The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): The Scottish Parliament's assigned budget for the next three years has been determined as part of the comprehensive spending review. From 1 July 1999, any change to the funding arrangements for the Parliament, including any proposal for a study of Scotland's relative needs, would be the subject of full consultation between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government.
  Mrs. Gorman: Will the Minister confirm that the last needs assessment for Scotland was conducted in 1977, under the last Labour Government, since when per capita income in Scotland soared under the Conservative Administration; and that per capita income in Scotland is now equal to that in England? Does he agree that, when the next needs assessment is considered, there will no longer be any excuse for English taxpayers having to subsidise Scotland to the tune of £1,000 for every man, woman and child in Scotland? There are needy areas in the south-west, Cornwall and the north-east, parts of London that currently languish under Labour management, and even parts of my constituency in Basildon where we could do with that money and where, I put it to him, the money could legitimately be directed.
  Mr. McLeish: It is a pity that the House continues to hear such tired old arguments about devolution and the
  170
  state of public finances in the United Kingdom. We have a settled system that is fair and provides stable finances throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. We believe that there is no need for a needs assessment, but, as I said, if that happens in future, there will be close consultation between the UK Government and the new Scottish Executive.
  That said, comments such as the hon. Lady's are about attacking devolution. I should have hoped that the issue would be put to rest by now, because all parties in the House now support that proposition. Let me tell the House what is important in Scotland: £4 billion of new money is being spent over the next three years, of which £1.8 billion will be spent on health and £1.3 billion on education. That is what my constituents want and I am sure that it is what the House wants as well.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems passingly strange that, on the one hand, the Tories are saying that we are spending too much and, on the other hand, the other right-wing party in Scotland, the Scottish National party, is saying that we are spending too little? Does my hon. Friend believe that the commitment given in the devolution White Paper that the Barnett formula will not be changed without a full assessment of Scotland's relative needs, together with the comprehensive spending review—which gives £1.8 billion extra for health and £1.3 billion extra for education—are the right policies to follow?
  Mr. McLeish: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. This is a stable settlement which provides something that is fair to the United Kingdom and to Scotland. My hon. Friend has highlighted the fact that, on the one hand, the SNP argues that the Barnett formula undermines the Scottish settlement, while, on the other hand, the Conservatives argue that Scotland is getting too much. They are both simply wrong. It is a fair settlement which should be supported.
  Mr. John Swinney: Before a needs assessment is carried out, is the Minister at all concerned about the fact that education and health spending in Scotland is increasing at a slower rate than in England and Wales as a result of the comprehensive spending review? As a consequence, does he not realise that the statement that he has just made and the comments by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) are ludicrous because they reveal no understanding of the real impact of the Barnett formula on public finances in Scotland?
  Mr. McLeish: It is no surprise or secret that spending levels are 20 per cent. higher per capita in Scotland. What is the SNP arguing? Is it arguing that Scotland is getting too much from Barnett and that the percentage is too high, or that it will spend more money and offer Scots a new future? The SNP cannot get away with that because it simply does not understand the finances: it is living in an economics fantasy world. Scots clearly want investment in real projects, and £4 billion in new money has been provided. The SNP cannot compete with that and the Tories want to undermine it, but ours is the correct way forward.

  Medical Care (Elderly People)
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: When he last met the chairmen of health boards to discuss matters relating to the medical care of elderly people. [70825]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): I meet representatives of health boards and national health service trusts regularly to discuss matters of current interest, including matters relating to the medical care of elderly people.
  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  Dr. Godman: Before it becomes a matter for the Scottish Parliament, dare I remind my hon. Friend that two problems affecting the medical treatment of the elderly relate to bed blocking—in all its faulty definitions—and medical examinations? What guidelines are given to general practitioners about the annual medical examinations that people of 75 years and above receive? Are those elderly people expected to skip down to the surgeries or are allowances made for their infirmity? How comprehensive are those examinations of the elderly?
  Mr. Galbraith: I assure my hon. Friend that allowances are made for general practitioners to visit elderly people in their homes in order to conduct examinations. The general practitioners are under an obligation either to invite elderly people to their surgeries or to conduct home visits. They carry out full examinations which assess the needs of the individual and then decide what matters should be pursued.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: When examining issues of long-term care for the elderly, I am sure that the Minister will wish to have regard to the royal commission's report on that subject. Can the Minister shed some light on why that commission—which the House was promised would report within 12 months after 4 December 1997—has not reported yet?
  Mr. Galbraith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is important to get such reports correct rather than to get them early. I trust that that has been the motivating factor for the royal commission.
  Mr. James Wray: Will the Minister tell the House why he has been pontificating about the fluoridation of the public water supply? Does he realise that he could be in breach of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956, the Medicine Act 1968 and the Water Act 1945? Will he tell the House what doctor provides treatment to patients whom he never sees?
  Mr. Galbraith: As many of my colleagues will know, my hon. Friend and I have had many jousts on this matter, in public and in private, and I am grateful to him for continuing the debate. He is looking a bit the worse for wear for it. We must take the most significant public measure possible to help my hon. Friend's constituents, and we must remember that this is an issue for his constituents more than anyone else. I know that he lives not in his constituency, but rather in a well-off place—but we must think about his constituents.

  Livestock Industry
  Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on the Scottish livestock industry. [70827]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): The Scottish livestock industry is working to recover from blows that have affected its performance in recent years. The Government are providing a record amount of aid to farming in Scotland—almost £500 million—and since taking office we have provided an extra £82 million of targeted special aid to the livestock sector. We also made the breakthrough in getting the EU beef export ban lifted via the date-based export scheme.
  From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Paterson: I thank the Minister for that reply. I recently talked to a major exporter of high-quality Scottish beef in Inverurie who said that, until the ban on beef on the bone is lifted, his business of exporting top-quality roasts to Italy, France and Belgium cannot be restarted. Therefore, no serious meat concern in Scotland will go to the considerable expense of dedicating an entire abattoir to export business. Last year, the risk of getting new version Creutzfeld-Jakob disease was one in a billion; this year, it is lower. When on earth will the Government apply common sense to the issue?
  Mr. Macdonald: It was the previous Government, of whose party the hon. Gentleman is a member, who caused the export ban to be imposed in the first place. We have made progress—the date-based export scheme was agreed in November and we shall shortly host a visit from the Commission to study the details of the scheme and to inspect premises. After that, we shall need to work hard to relaunch the export industry successfully. I am sure that there is a market for Scottish and British beef, and we need to work hard to ensure that we win that market.
  Sir Robert Smith: Will the Minister assure the livestock industry that, if national envelopes are introduced as a result of the negotiations on Agenda 2000 and reform of the common agricultural policy, the Government will use all the money in the national envelope to benefit agriculture?
  Mr. Macdonald: I cannot anticipate the outcome of the negotiations. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, Lord Sewel, the Minister responsible for agriculture, is in Brussels and engaged in discussions on Agenda 2000. Current proposals would be a step in the right direction, but we need to do much more work to ensure that they are fair to British farming, including the Scottish industry.

  Housing
  Mr. Ian Davidson: If he will make a statement on the development of community ownership of housing in Glasgow. [70828]
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): Glasgow city council is currently conducting a feasibility study of options for the possible transfer of the council's housing stock into community ownership.

  173
  From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Davidson: I welcome any prospect of additional money for Scottish housing in general and Glasgow in particular. I welcome also the Government's enthusiasm for the community ownership of housing. Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that it is important that any new tenants who go into community housing do so willingly and do not feel that they have been bribed or bludgeoned into doing so?
  Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if there is to be any new money for Scottish housing, that money should be available whatever the result of any ballots about transfer of ownership, whether people choose to stay with the local authority, go to community housing or go somewhere else? Does he agree that it is essential that there are no rigged ballots for disposing of Scottish housing in future?
  Mr. Dewar: I do not accept the implication that there have been rigged ballots. "Rigged" is a rather serious word to use. I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the emphasis on community ownership. It is an exciting initiative. It is only one option open to local government, which is at the absolute centre of the housing partnerships on which we are working.
  I stress that not only does a local authority have to agree before a community ownership scheme can be set up, but the decision must be endorsed by tenants. It is important that any ballot is conducted on the basis of full information so that tenants have the opportunity to assess exactly what kind of tenancy agreement and rent policy would result. I am interested not in railroading anyone into that decision, but in taking an exciting new approach to housing and providing an opportunity to deal with the problem of residual debt, while involving tenants in managing their own affairs.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend will take pleasure—as I have—in the enormously positive response of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Shelter and many other organisations to the recently published Green Paper.

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

  Magistrates Clerks
  Mr. John M. Taylor: When he last discussed with the Association of Magisterial Officers the qualifications required of a clerk to a magistrates court. [70849]
  The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I last spoke with the Association of Magisterial Officers about qualifications for court clerks on 14 January 1999.
  Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister mind telling the House, on the matter of the solicitor's qualification, why a clerk of a magistrates court should need to be trained and examined in conveyancing, probate, wills and trusts?
  Mr. Hoon: I had thought that the policy of the previous Administration was in favour of requiring magistrates
  174
  court clerks to be legally qualified, and that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. It is important that those giving legal advice to magistrates are legally qualified.
  Mr. David Kidney: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the concession that he made to allow clerks over 40 years of age to continue in their job without obtaining the qualification, and I congratulate him on the fact that he has put in place the training of non-qualified clerks so that they can obtain the qualification. Having said all that as his friend, may I ask him once more about the question of certificates of competence for those who have not attained the age of 40 but have done the job for many years and have thereby proved their competence? Why should they be obliged to obtain another qualification if they can already receive a certificate, as suggested by the Justices' Clerks Society, for one?
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations, but there is no suggestion that there is any criticism of the competence of those giving legal advice. However, it is important that we achieve a fully professional service to meet the challenges facing magistrates courts today and those that they are likely to face in future. The difficulty is that, if we exempt the great majority of those in post at present, it will take until at least the fourth decade of the next century to achieve the legal qualification.

  Legal Aid Board
  Mr. Simon Burns: If he will make a statement about the financial efficiency of the Legal Aid Board. [70850]
  The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The grant allocated for the Legal Aid Board's administration costs is determined with reference to a business plan, which sets out performance targets for processing the board's business under the legal aid scheme. In the financial year 1997–98, the board's unit costs fell by 1.7 per cent.
  The Access to Justice Bill will reform legal aid and replace the Legal Aid Board with a Legal Services Commission, which will develop the managerial and strategic systems to implement the new legal aid arrangements and monitor them in future.
  Mr. Burns: Does the Minister agree that one way of improving the financial efficiency of the Legal Aid Board would be for the Minister to reform the system to stop the ludicrous position—which is affecting some of my constituents—whereby a European Union national or anyone from outside the EU can come to this country and immediately qualify for legal aid, whereas most British citizens cannot travel the world and get free legal services in other countries at their taxpayers' expense? Does the Minister agree that it is time that this nonsense was stopped?
  Mr. Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are engaged in a significant reform of the legal aid scheme. However, I must tell him that reciprocity in the availability of legal aid with other European Union countries actually works to the advantage

  175
  of citizens of the United Kingdom, because they benefit from legal advice and help when they go to other EU countries. There is also a consideration under the European convention on human rights, as it is important that those appearing before our courts, of whatever nationality, have access to legal representation.
  Jacqui Smith: Last week I was able to visit and see the excellent work of the Redditch citizens advice bureau, and I was impressed by the potential that exists there for providing accessible legal advice to my constituents. Can my hon. Friend assure me that, in the legal aid reforms, the Government will not only keep control of current expenditure on legal aid, but ensure that a larger proportion is made available to provide legal advice in areas such as citizens advice bureaux and law centres—and widen the ambit of legal aid to cover areas, such as welfare benefits, that currently are not covered?
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her observations. She and I were elected on a manifesto that pledged to create a community legal service. It is precisely the Government's intention to get the existing legal aid scheme under control to provide resources to fund a community legal service that will give help to the most disadvantaged in our society.
  Mr. John Burnett: The Government believe that the introduction of conditional fee agreements will substantially reduce the legal aid budget. They also believe that that will open up access to justice to middle-income Britain. Will the Minister tell the House whether, under conditional fee agreements, the costs of successful plaintiffs—whether they be the uplift in cost, disbursements, experts' fees and insurance premiums, if they are affordable and available—will be recoverable on a full indemnity basis?
  Mr. Hoon: Subject, obviously, to the approval of the House, the Access to Justice Bill specifies that a successful plaintiff, under a conditional fee agreement, would be able to recover both an insurance premium and the success fee from the unsuccessful defendant.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: Under the Minister's plans, the only money that will be left for civil legal aid will be what is left over after the requirements of criminal legal aid have been met. If that is what he intended when he introduced his reforms, why did he not say so 18 months ago, or is this just another example of his failure to give attention to detail?
  Mr. Hoon: It is clear that the proposed criminal defence service and the proposed community legal service budgets are separate, but those budgets are set with an expenditure settlement that is settled for the next three years. In that context, proposals to ring-fence one or both budgets would not be realistic. All services funded by the Government are funded by the taxpayer and the Government must be free to consider competing priorities for the finite resources that are available.

  Stow-on-the-Wold Magistrates Court
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What representations he has received regarding an appeal against closure of the magistrates court in Stow-on-the-Wold, Gloucestershire. [70851]
  The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I have now received three representations from local interested parties following Gloucestershire magistrates courts committee's decision to close the Stow-on-the-Wold magistrates court with effect from 1 July 1999.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister will be aware that the magistrates courts in Tewkesbury and in Chipping Campden have already been closed. That means that huge swathes of north and east Gloucestershire will be without a magistrates court, which will involve my constituents having to travel distances of well over 20 miles, even though the bus service is virtually non-existent. Is not that the quickest way to alienate constituents in rural areas from the summary justice system?
  Will the Minister consider an appeal from Gloucestershire county council against that ludicrous decision by the Gloucestershire magistrates courts committee, which will save only £7,000 a year? The decision is utterly ridiculous—so will he overrule it?
  Mr. Hoon: Each of the decisions to which the hon. Gentleman refers was taken locally—they were certainly taken by the local magistrates courts committee—and, I suspect, involved his own constituents. In respect of the particular appeal concerning the Stow-on-the-Wold magistrates court, as he will know, the appeal process has only just begun. Those involved in each part of the appeal will be given an opportunity to present their case and comment on the case made by the other side. A decision will not be made until both parties have confirmed that their cases are complete.

  Legal Aid Budget
  Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the legal aid budget for 1999–2000. [70853]
  The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Legal aid provision for 1999–2000 is £1.63 billion. Of that, the Government expect to spend approximately £850 million on criminal cases and £780 million on civil and family legal aid.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Given that the number of firms providing legal aid services is set to fall, as a direct result of Government policy, from 10,600 to only 3,000, why does he not understand that firms with block contracts to act in either the civil or the criminal courts are anxious for some reassurance about what will happen after the first round of contracts has been concluded under his Access to Justice Bill?
  Will the Minister accept that, unless some such reassurance is forthcoming, people will inevitably conclude that the Government are hellbent on cutting costs, whatever the sacrifice in the quality of service or in access to justice?
  Mr. Hoon: I want to make it clear to the House that no decision has yet been taken on precisely how many

  177
  solicitors will be granted contracts. However, the hon. Gentleman's conclusion is wrong. The whole purpose of franchising and providing contracts is to ensure that members of the public have access to specialists. Indeed, those who are eligible for franchises and contracts will be high-quality solicitors who specialise in particular areas. That will ensure access to justice; it will also ensure that ordinary members of the public have the best-quality service.
  Charlotte Atkins: Is it not the case that some lawyers are getting rich at the expense of the legal aid budget, while profit-free services such as citizens advice bureaux and law centres suffer?
  Mr. Hoon: Certainly, that is part of the underlying reason why the Government intend to create a community legal service, as I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) earlier. The community legal service will be able to concentrate help where it is most needed, especially among the most disadvantaged in our society.

  Legal Aid (Personal Injury Cases)
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on the effects of his Department's plans to withdraw legal aid in personal injury cases. [70854]
  The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Government are determined to ensure that the best use is made of taxpayers' money used to fund legal services. We see no reason to use taxpayers' money where other suitable forms of funding exist. The vast majority of personal injury cases are suitable for funding through a conditional fee agreement and at least 50,000 such agreements have already been made. However, cases with exceptionally high investigative or overall costs, or that raise issues of public interest, may continue to receive help from public funds. Moreover, there are no present plans to remove from that scope cases of personal injury caused by clinical negligence.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Does that answer not demonstrate mean-mindedness, because the costs of claims are often recovered through successful prosecutions and are therefore extremely small? Does it not also show shortsightedness, because in personal injury cases, where individuals' life chances have been destroyed, those without the money to pursue their case will no longer be supported by the state and, as a result, will become a burden on the state, costing the Exchequer many more pounds in the future?
  Mr. Hoon: Unfortunately, the statistical evidence does not bear the hon. Gentleman out. If the House will forgive
  178
  me, I shall set out some figures that will instruct him and perhaps assist him in formulating his arguments in the future. In 1996–97, some 83,000 personal injury cases were funded by legal aid. Of those, nearly 12,000 were clinical negligence cases, which will remain within the scope, but, of the remaining cases, more than 81 per cent. cost £4,000 or less. That was the total cost for the case, including counsel's fees. Those disbursement costs are not beyond the means of a typical solicitor, who could fund those up-front costs to the benefit of his or her clients.
  Ms Beverley Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that lawyers in personal injury practice constantly come across people who cannot afford to pursue personal injury cases precisely because they are not eligible for legal aid? Would not moving to a conditional fee arrangement open up the courts to those with genuine claims who cannot pursue them now because they are of modest means but just above the limit for legal aid?
  Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right. At present, many people cannot afford to fund legal cases themselves, but are not so poor that they qualify for legal aid. The success of the arrangement demonstrates that the large number of people in the middle can gain access to justice as a result of the conditional fee agreements.

  Rural Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on his policy on the closure of rural magistrates courts. [70855]
  The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Government's policy is that the administration of magistrates courts is best decided locally, consistent with the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997—legislation that we inherited from the previous Government. A local authority that contributes financially may appeal to the Lord Chancellor against a proposed closure. The procedure for such appeals is also set out in section 56 of the 1997 Act. In the absence of an appeal, the Lord Chancellor plays no part in the process.
  Mr. Swayne: Magistrates courts are not volunteering for closure: these closures are a consequence of the Minister's policy. How many rural magistrates courts have closed since the hon. Gentleman took up his responsibilities?
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right so suggest that magistrates courts are not volunteering for closure. The local magistrates courts committees, which are responsible for them, are taking those decisions.

Economic and Monetary Union
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
On 27 October 1997, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out the Government's policy on the European single currency. He said that he would publish details of how, should it choose to do so, Britain could join the euro. That became known as the national changeover plan. Today, we publish an outline of that plan as a basis for consultation.
I should like to thank the standing committee set up by the Chancellor to oversee preparatory work on monetary union across the economy. I am most grateful to the Governor of the Bank of England, the heads of the Financial Services Authority and the British Bankers Association, the presidents of the Confederation of British Industry and the British Chambers of Commerce and the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress for their contribution to this work. It has been a truly co-operative effort involving an unprecedented partnership between the public and private sectors. I am particularly pleased that the standing committee welcomed our intention to produce the outline plan that we are publishing today.
In his statement of October 1997, the Chancellor made clear the Government's view that membership of a successful euro would bring benefits to Britain in terms of jobs, investment and trade. He said that, in principle, the Government were in favour of Britain joining a successful single currency, and he set out the conditions necessary to satisfy our national economic interest.
Our intention is clear: Britain should join a successful single currency, provided the economic conditions are met. Our membership is conditional; it is not inevitable. Both intention and conditions are genuine. We believe that it is the right course for the country to resolve this issue for the British national interest, the future of our people and their well-being. It is that national interest that will always come first.
I do not dismiss the constitutional or political issues. They are real. Monetary union is a big step of integration, but so were the Single European Act and the European Union itself. In finance and business, the world is more and more integrated. It is moving closer together. If joining a single currency is good for British jobs and British industry, and if it enhances British power and British influence, I believe it is right for Britain to overcome those constitutional and political arguments and the fears behind them. For the very reason of the sensitivity of those arguments, we have also said clearly that the Government can recommend, but the people will decide in a referendum.
What we announce today is not a change of policy: it is a change of gear. If we wish to have the option of joining, we must prepare. The sheer nature, scale and complexity of the arrangements require considerable time for such preparation. Joining the euro is, for example, far more detailed in its consequences than decimalisation. If we do not start to face this reality now, we will simply not have the practical means necessary to make a choice.
There are those, on the Opposition Benches and elsewhere, who oppose the very idea of a national changeover plan. We can no longer afford to pretend
180
either that the euro does not exist or that Britain should not actively prepare for it. Such a denial of reality does not promote Britain's interests; it betrays Britain's interests.
The euro is a reality. It exists. Eleven out of 15 other European Union members are in it. It represents 20 per cent. of world income—as big as the United States. It will be the currency of 290 million people.
The euro has begun and, on the whole, it has begun well. Of course, these are early days. There will be tests and strains ahead, but the launch was successful. Those who predicted that it would never happen or would launch itself in disaster have been proven wrong. And it will have a major impact on Britain, in or out: that much is obvious. That alone would rebuke those who would like to pretend that it is not there.
Fifty per cent. of our trade is with the euro zone. The launch of the euro means that an increasing number of UK firms are already starting to use the euro—and not just big business such as British Steel, Ford, Philips, ICI and Unilever; surveys by the Treasury's euro preparations unit show that some 45 per cent. of small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK have trading links with Europe, and they are already having to prepare to deal with the euro. The same surveys showed that nearly half all SMEs thought that the single currency would affect their business. Last autumn, some 14 per cent. of SMEs were already planning to use the euro, and the latest survey by APACS—the Association for Payment Clearing Services—shows that 247,000 companies intend to open euro accounts. Eighty-six per cent. of large retailers have suppliers in the euro zone, and 44 per cent. say that they are planning to pay euro zone suppliers in euros from this year. The euro, therefore, is now an everyday reality for British business, large and small.
When we came to office, we took immediate steps to help the country to prepare. Since the Chancellor's statement, the Treasury has run a major information and direct mail campaign for the 1.6 million small businesses in the UK. Some 350,000 copies of the Treasury's business fact sheets have been distributed, and there have been 750,000 requests for the fact sheet leaflet. We have established 12 regional euro forums across the UK, led by senior business people, who are making preparations at local level.
Firms can now pay taxes, file accounts, issue and redenominate shares, and receive certain grants in euros, and Customs and Excise has trained some 10,000 staff to respond to business needs. Small businesses will have the help that they need. The City of London is prepared, and is already taking a good share of euro-denominated business.
These, however, are all preparations for the euro with Britain, at present, out of that single currency. It is also necessary now to prepare for Britain being part of it. If, as we have already announced, we want to keep open the option of making a decision early in the next Parliament to join, we need to step up our practical preparations now; hence the national changeover plan.
The public sector will give a clear sign of its commitment to prepare. Each Department now has a Minister responsible for euro preparations, and each will now report regularly on the preparations that are being made. Where computer systems are being upgraded, all Departments will build in euro compatibility where that

181
represents value for money. In the case of the Department of Social Security, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, the scale and complexity of their computer systems make advance preparations critical. Together, those Departments are the main interface between central Government and the business community, and deal with almost every individual in the UK. They may need to spend some money prior to a referendum to make their information technology systems euro compatible, so that we can maintain the flexibility for Britain to make the changeover as quickly and cost-effectively as possible.
It is right that Parliament should be asked to give explicit approval to such expenditures, which will amount to some tens of millions of pounds spread over a number of years. We will therefore include provisions in the Finance Bill and the Social Security Bill that will authorise the spending—and, of course, there will be the normal votes on the appropriation accounts. The Government will be making active preparations for the euro, in the belief that it will be in this country's interests to join in the future should our economic tests be met. Business should start to do the same.
The national changeover plan sets out the range of work involved for different sectors. For example, in the retail financial sector, the British Bankers Association and APACS are leading work with the Bank of England on how to approach the conversion of their core IT systems. The retail sector more generally will be working, with consumers and suppliers, on a detailed code of practice on arrangements for the changeover. Businesses, large and small, need to focus on the impact of the euro on their business strategies.
On the basis of that work, and after studying the experience of the first wave of participants, the outline plan that we are publishing today shows that it is possible to streamline the timetable adopted in Europe, with no disadvantage to our economy and some benefit. Overall, we believe that it should be possible to move in four months, from a Government decision to a referendum; and, in 24 to 30 months, from a positive referendum result to the introduction of notes and coins. It would be a further six months before sterling notes and coins were withdrawn.
Therefore, the whole process—from a positive referendum result to the withdrawal of sterling—could be completed in about three years, which is considerably faster than the period required for the first wave of monetary union participants. However, a great deal of further work must be done to refine and develop the timetable, and particularly to clarify how soon after a positive referendum result we could actually join monetary union. As the plan makes it clear, we are committed to taking that work forward in collaboration with business and the wider public sector, so that we can produce a further plan in about a year's time.
As for the economic tests that the Chancellor established on 27 October 1997, there is much focus—which is entirely natural—on the politics of the euro project. It is, of course, an intensely political act. However, just as the euro cannot be conceived of except politically, it cannot be made to work except economically. It is, after all, an economic union.
We have, as a Government, resolved the political issues in favour of the principle of joining, should the economic tests be met. But they must be met. The manner in which
182
we joined the exchange rate mechanism is a standing monument to the danger of joining a monetary arrangement on purely political grounds.
There are, therefore, two ideological and absolute positions on the euro which I do not share. The first is that of "no, never", which rules out Britain's membership of the euro for always on the ground of constitutional principle. The position is perfectly principled and argues—no matter what the benefits in jobs, industry or even influence—that such a decision is simply wrong, on the ground of sovereignty.
I cannot accept that position, for the reasons that I gave earlier. In the modern world, one has only to look around to see that technology, global finance, mass communication—to say nothing of travel and culture—are coming together. The world is moving together. Sovereignty pooled can be sovereignty—or at least power and influence—renewed. I suspect that, even if we were today to rule out membership in principle and for ever, in a few years, that ruling would itself come under question. In the meantime, we would have lost all influence whatsoever in the economic future of the European Union, of which we will remain a member.
The second position is an unconditional "yes, now". It maintains that economic conditions are meaningless, and that we should join regardless. I believe that economic conditions are meaningful. It is precisely because the conditions are meaningful that we have said, to give some greater certainty to business and the country, that, barring unforeseen circumstances, we would not make a decision in this Parliament to recommend joining the euro.
It is worth, however, summarising the economic tests that the Chancellor established: sustainable convergence between the UK and countries within the euro zone; flexibility to adapt to change in the UK and in continental Europe; the impact on investment and the UK financial services industry; and whether joining the single currency would be good for employment.
Three points should be emphasised. The first is that economic convergence must not be momentary, but, as far as we can accurately foresee, sustainable. We are still at a different stage of the economic cycle from the rest of Europe. However, the difference between our official interest rates and theirs is narrowing. In October 1997, UK interest rates were at 7 per cent, with those in France and Germany at close to 3 per cent. UK interest rates are now at 5.5 per cent, compared with 3 per cent. for the euro area. The difference between our long-term interest rates and their own also is narrowing, and is now down to about 0.5 per cent. Long-term, UK interest rates are now about their lowest for 40 years. Our inflation performance also is consistent with the European central bank's definition of price stability. However, it is essential that convergence is settled and sustainable. We cannot say that yet.
Moreover, for decades we have been prone to far greater swings in the economic cycle than our continental counterparts. It has been boom and bust. That has enormously damaged investment and reduced our ability to grow without hitting an inflationary ceiling at relatively low levels of growth.
Under this Government, there is an entirely new framework for economic management in place. Bank of England independence has at long last given us credibility in interest rate decisions, as well as low interest rates.

183
There are also new fiscal rules which the Chancellor has relied on to slash the £28 billion borrowing requirement and ballooning national debt which we inherited and put us on a path of fiscal prudence. The new framework is a revolution in economic management for Britain. On its foundation, we have put in place measures to boost education, skills, technology and productivity, and measures to enhance the ability of business to grow and prosper. However, we need to get through this more difficult part of the economic cycle and emerge stronger. For Britain to join the euro, it must be from a position of sustained economic strength.
The second point is that these are early days for the euro. It is sensible to see how it settles down and how the ECB steers a path consistent with both strong economic discipline and the avoidance of deflation.
Thirdly, it will take some time to make a clear judgment about whether the direction of economic reform in Europe will enable us to meet the tests that we have set out, particularly on flexibility and jobs.
Europe has a choice. Most of the countries in Europe have high and persistent levels of unemployment. The Asian crisis has brought home to all of us in the EU the fragility of the new world of globalisation. Our world economy is more interdependent than ever. The EU is competing not just with itself, but with the whole world from Asia to America. The single currency alone will not make Europe prosperous. The single currency plus fundamental reform in labour, capital and product markets and in our welfare systems can do so.
Economic reform is crucial, not just to the success of Britain's participation in the euro, but to the euro itself. I understand the worries of those who, while not ruling out the euro in principle, are none the less concerned about the type of euro zone that we might be joining. That is a real question. We must be sure that the EU is moving forwards, not backwards. There are real problems in the EU and Britain can play a part in the solution. The economic reform programme includes the action plans that we started at our Cardiff Economic Council. They require labour market reform through greater flexibility, capital market reform through a European venture capital industry and product market reform through extending competition and strengthening the single market. We are determined that these must be in place. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I would be obliged if hon. Members who are conducting running commentaries would desist.
The Prime Minister: It would be better if their running commentaries made any sense.
The way to provide social protection today is not more and more regulation or high business costs and taxes; it is through making our work force highly adaptable, more employable and better skilled, encouraging the development of technology, promoting small businesses and making our welfare systems help people off benefit and into work, with specific measures to combat social exclusion. We need a new social model for a new European reality.
I want a Britain strong, economically disciplined, with boom and bust eradicated, flexible, competitive and dynamic. I want us in a Europe that at best is moving
184
firmly in the same direction, rather than trying to hold us back. That is a vision that lets us adapt the European social model to the new realities of global commerce; a vision that binds the EU and America closer together and lets us learn from one another.
We have stated today as a matter of Government policy that in principle Britain should join a successful single currency. That principle is real. The practical preparations that we have set out are real. The conditions—necessary so that we proceed with caution, with common sense and in our own interests—are real. We have set out a vision of Europe's future.
We have a vision, but it is a vision that is practical. We should have confidence in Britain, both in our vision and our pragmatism. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr. William Hague: Many of us have listened to many statements, but never have we heard such a long list of clichés and verbiage accompanied by so little information.
It was all so simple for the Prime Minister before the last election. Perhaps he recalls his article in The Sun in April 1997, which appeared under the headline,
"My love for £. Exclusive by Tony Blair.
Tony Blair last night declared for the first time he loves the pound."
He admitted:
"'I know exactly what the British people feel when they see the Queen's head on a £10 note. I feel it too.'"
[Interruption.] He did not think it was a joke at the time. There were, he said,
"emotional issues involved in the single currency",
and he spoke about his passion for the pound. Has it not been a remarkably short journey from this love of the pound to the plan that he is announcing today to adopt the euro and abolish the pound? Has not the Prime Minister today committed the country to a course of action that is unnecessary, expensive and time consuming, and for which the British voters have never given their consent?
The Prime Minister must know that, if Britain joins the single currency, we risk being unable to run the British economy in the interests of British business. We also risk fundamental political powers—such as the power to tax and spend—being transferred away from democratically accountable British Governments. He must know that there is no sign of the British economy becoming permanently convergent with continental economies. The evidence that he just claimed to give could be equally given for the dollar, as for the euro. That is one of the preconditions that he himself has set for joining the euro.
The Treasury's own study of the economic tests states that the UK economy has become increasingly out of step with Germany and more synchronised with the United States. The document says that, if the UK were to enter monetary union,
"the loss of domestic monetary policy and the lack of exchange rate freedom could make the UK cycle more volatile."
That means more boom and bust—the right hon. Gentleman ought to be aware of that, if anybody is.
Why are there no answers today from the Prime Minister to those fundamental questions? Is it not foolish to embark on a changeover plan without the faintest clue

185
about how the necessary convergence of the economies is to be achieved in the first place? Is it not foolish to do so without knowing why we should want to converge with economies in which one in eight people is out of work in any case?
The Prime Minister has given a long statement without being specific in any way about the costs involved. He referred vaguely in the middle of his statement to tens of millions of pounds of public money. Why will he not say how much money will be spent in the public sector that could have been spent on the education, health and public services that he said he would provide?
Why do the accompanying documents—which I have just seen on coming to the House—give no clue as to what is involved for the private sector? There are two pages about what it means for a corner shop under the heading, "Case Study: A Corner Shop". It begins:
"A small corner shop sells a variety of groceries and household supplies."
It will be mightily pleased to hear that. The document continues:
"on a given date the shop could simply switch over from giving change in sterling to giving change in euros."
It does not say how much that will cost. The only figure mentioned in the whole two pages on a corner shop is £1.99, on the basis that, if we convert from pounds into euros, the shop might not charge things at £1.99 any more.
What use will the document be to businesses? Are not tens of millions of pounds a huge amount for taxpayers and businesses to pay before such fundamental questions are answered? Does not the Prime Minister recognise that most businesses in the country are small and that the thousands of small businesses represented by the Federation of Small Businesses are against joining the euro and will not be persuaded unless they can see greater economic advantage?
Unless the public have decided to join, they should not be forced to spend their hard-earned money on a changeover plan. Is not the money really being spent so that the Prime Minister can show that he is doing his best to sign us up to the euro, parading in front of EU Councils as the man who would join tomorrow if only the stubborn electorate would allow him? Are not the tens of millions of pounds involved a high price to pay for his vanity?
Does not the Maastricht treaty require countries preparing to join the euro to shadow it for at least two years—not to join the exchange rate mechanism, but to shadow the euro? The Prime Minister spent 20 minutes talking about preparing to join without saying a word about the most important thing that one has to do if one wants to join.
Does the Prime Minister have any plans to shadow the euro before the next general election, with all that that means for running our economy according to conditions in other countries rather than in our own? If so, he should come clean now; and, if not, why do we need a changeover plan in the meantime? Why has he produced a changeover plan that talks about computer software and cash registers but is unable to say if or when the Government will do the most important thing?
This morning, the Prime Minister's press secretary claimed that the statement was about giving the country a choice. As he was briefing on the statement several hours in advance, it is a wonder that the Home Secretary has
186
not slapped an injunction on him by now. Is it not the case that, instead of giving people a choice, the national changeover plan is part of a national handover plan, handing over our economic and political freedoms before we have even seen whether the single currency works for anyone, let alone for this country?
The Prime Minister wants to bounce the British people into joining the euro by spending tens of millions of pounds of their money on convincing them that it is inevitable. He says that it is not inevitable, but this whole process is designed to make it so. He wants to change the cash registers, computers and banking systems so that he can turn round and tell the British people that they have no choice but to change their currency.
Does this not all add up to a strategy of pretending to give people a choice while steadily denying and diminishing that choice? Is it not an attempt to lull people into thinking that a nation that has decided its own destiny for 1,000 years is no longer fit to do so? The Prime Minister has built his recent career on being all things to all people and reassuringly facing in one direction while heading off in another. That is the trick that he has perfected, and he has now surpassed himself: while he trumpets his love for the pound, his love for the euro is the love that dare not speak its name.
Would not a Prime Minister who really wanted to give the country a choice set out a viable alternative and show the people that there is another option and that we can choose to make a success of our own currency, as part of the European Union, trading in the euro as we trade in the dollar, in Europe but not run by Europe? Should not he make it clear that for the sixth largest economy in the world to have its own currency is a perfectly viable proposition and set out a strategy for how Britain can take the fullest advantage and make the most of the freedoms and opportunities of keeping the pound?
The Prime Minister does not want to develop such a strategy. He wants people to believe that the decision is made, that entry is inevitable and that the decision of the British people is a formality. I believe that he will find that he is very much mistaken.
The Prime Minister: At least the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is opposed to a single currency for good, for ever.
Mr. Hague: No, I have not.
The Prime Minister: No, he has not, he says. Well, he could have fooled me. We are to protect, are we, the thousand years of British history for the next Parliament but not the one after? This is the fourth position that the right hon. Gentleman has had on the issue since the election. In May 1997, he said that he was
"against the single currency in principle."
Then he said that he was against the single currency in principle "for the foreseeable future". Then he said that he had always said that
"we intend to oppose it at the next election".
That would mean for the next Parliament. Then he said:
"I don't think it's necessary to say we are against it in principle."
Now he is saying that he is against it for the next Parliament, but not that he is against it for ever. If anyone wanted to know why he and his party are not taken seriously on this issue, they should have listened to him just now.

187
I shall deal with some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made. The whole purpose of the national changeover plan is to make the preparations necessary to allow us to make a choice. If we do not make those preparations, we will not be in a position to make the choice. As he has just told me that he does not rule out joining, he would be in the same position but at a later stage. It is important to try to do what is right for this country's interests. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are going to push people into it, but we have made it clear that there will be a referendum and people will have the ultimate choice. However, to allow them to be in the position to make that choice, especially with the euro now a reality, it is important that we make those preparations.
I believe that the expenditure is right, in order to prepare us for the euro. The Chancellor pointed out to me that the expenditure will be somewhat less than the amount the Conservative Government lost in their exit from the exchange rate mechanism. However, we do not want to bring back those memories.
The truth of the matter is that the Conservatives said that it would not happen. They were wrong. They said that if it did happen, it would collapse. They were wrong. Now they say that, whatever the circumstances, our motto should be "be not prepared". Wrong again. They have been wrong on every major issue connected with this policy every time that they have opened their mouths. The ostrich strategy will simply not work.
Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that he is the first Tory leader in living memory to put himself on the opposite side from the CBI, the BBA, the British Chambers of Commerce and the City of London? We could even have the delicious irony of going into the next general election with the only fears on the financial markets being the prospect of a Tory election victory. That, I am afraid, is his contribution to the Conservative party, and he will rue the day he made it.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: There is a rule of thumb about Government statements in the House, which is that the longer the statement, the more opaque the policy. That is a bit of what we heard earlier. I am reminded of a comment from a Minister earlier today when he was asked whether entry was a matter of when or if. He said that the Government's policy was that the two words are now interchangeable. I do not know precisely what that means.
The statement was very significant. Is not the truth simply that today the Government have crossed the Rubicon in favour of the euro? I greatly welcome that, even though the Government have crossed the Rubicon only by the tiniest millimetre. I welcome it even though the Government are trying to pretend that they have not crossed the Rubicon. I welcome it because now the Government will have to defend their position—something that they have not done before.
The statement has two levels: the level that one sees, and the level that one is supposed not to see. The level that one sees is the perfectly sensible statement about measures to be taken in preparation for the euro. We welcome those measures, which are sensible, realistic and practical. I am glad that they will be debated and voted on in the House.
188
The level of the statement that we are not supposed to see is the continuation of the Government's policy of leadership by stealth. They move forward a millimetre at a time, but sooner or later they arrive at a point from which they cannot go back. That point has been arrived at today.
I have a question for the Prime Minister. Today he has been attacked by the Tories, and tomorrow he will be attacked by the Tory, Euro-sceptic press. Does he then leave the position undefended, or does he leave it to others—such as the CBI and the other organisations that he has just mentioned—to defend it for him?
All those organisations have shown more leadership on the issue than the Government, but the Prime Minister cannot leave it to them. The Government will have to defend their position: they can follow a policy of stealth, but they cannot win a referendum by stealth. Unless the Government are prepared to come forward and argue the case for the euro, they risk this decision, the most important that Britain has to face, being lost by stealth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That response shows what that lot on the Conservative Benches want to happen. That is the policy that the Government are currently following.
Is it not a tragedy for Britain, as this country faces the most important decision that it will face in the next two or three decades, that the Government take the view that they want to join the euro but try to pretend that they do not, and that the Tories take the position that they want to get out of Europe but try to pretend that they do not?
I have a single, specific question for the Prime Minister, which will reveal his intentions. He has told us that he wishes there to be a referendum early in the next Parliament, which means that the necessary legislation must be passed in this Parliament. Does he understand that?
The Prime Minister: First, I will try to take that as a statement in support, but it is a little unfair to accuse me of acting by stealth. After all, I am all here, in the House of Commons, making the statement. As for the referendum, the position is as we have set it out.
I shall deal head on with the basic criticism made by the right hon. Gentleman. There are three positions with regard to the euro—"no, never", "yes, now" and "yes, on condition". That last position is where we are now, and it is the right position to be in. It allows us to signal our intention, to set out the proper conditions, and to say what is necessary for the euro to work for the British national interest.
I believe that that balanced, sensible course sets a direction for this country, but it makes it clear that joining the euro must be in the national economic interest and it sets out the conditions for that. I surmise that, if we were in different positions and I was asking the right hon. Gentleman questions, he would probably agree that these economic conditions have to be met. When he reflects on the matter, he is probably in the same position as we are.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was fair of the Leader of the Opposition to say that the position was unnecessary, expensive and time-consuming, but that the right hon. Gentleman was referring to his own position? The Tory position is unnecessary because people want to join the euro; it is expensive because the longer we stay outside,

189
the greater will be the problem for business; and it is time-consuming because the House has no idea when the convergence criteria would be met to the satisfaction of the Conservative party. Is it not the Government alone who are prepared to take the necessary steps and put the choice to the people in a referendum?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes the sensible point that it is absurd of the Conservative party—if what we have heard today is their official position—to say that it will rule out the euro in principle, but only for 10 years. That is an absurd position: one either rules out the euro in principle, or one sets out the conditions necessary for entry.
My hon. Friend is also right to say that the position of the Conservative party is contrary to our national interest in the sense that, unless we make the expenditure and the preparations, we cannot be in position to exercise the choice. We are not forcing business to spend money, but saying what it would be sensible to do if they wish to be in a position to take advantage of the single currency, should Britain join it. I think that that common-sense position will appeal to the vast majority of people in business.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Prime Minister will recall that I have on occasion been extremely critical of his and his Government's weasel words on EMU, whether they were in articles in The Sun or in statements to the House. Will he therefore accept that I welcome the marked change of tone represented by today's statement? In particular, I welcome the fact that he has reached agreement with representatives of the majority of British business on the practical steps that need to be taken if we are to give reality to the policy of prepare and decide.
Will the Prime Minister undertake to continue from now on to put his mouth where he thinks our money ought to be? Will he confirm that, in the real world, the British people should be concentrating on whether the country has achieved genuine and sustainable convergence with the economies of the euro zone, whether his Government can succeed in negotiating satisfactory terms for entry, and what their decision will be in the referendum, whenever it may come?
The Prime Minister: I largely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. This is a major debate about the future of our country, and I have set out the Government's position by making a statement to the House. I shall, of course, carry on stating why I believe our position to be in the national interest. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I would share a view on one central point: to be pro-British, one does not need to be anti-European. We can be both, and, in a modern world, we should be.
Mr. Giles Radice: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement represents a major step forward? Not only did he set out practical preparations that the country must take, but he made it clear that, provided the economic circumstances are right, it is the Government's intention to join. This is the first time that the Government have said that so clearly. Does he agree that the time has come for a great national debate to inform the British people about the euro, and that the British Government must lead the debate?
The Prime Minister: Of course, my statement and its aftermath are part of the national debate. It is important
190
that we have set out the economic circumstances that would make joining in our national interest. We have set those circumstances out clearly and we have signalled the Government's direction. We have set out the conditions clearly, and that is the right position to take.
Sir Edward Heath: The Prime Minister has been absolutely right in everything that he has said today. I welcome that, although I would have welcomed it even more if he had said it last June when the whole process began.
We risk what we suffered before for 22 years when we had no influence whatever in the policies being followed by what is now the European Union. We cannot afford to take that risk again. I urge that preparations should be made as speedily as possible. We have heard many pseudo-arguments, all of them dominated by one economic fact throughout the history of the world. That fact is this: no single market in the world has more than one currency. We cannot carry on successfully in a single market if we go for multiple currencies. That simply is not feasible. The rest of Europe knows that perfectly well, and the United States knows it too. Where would the US be if it had had more than one currency? There is no argument against that point, and I hope that the Prime Minister will act as speedily as is practically possible.
The Prime Minister: It is important to realise that a single currency in a single market can bring benefits in terms of jobs and investment in industry. That is why we have set out our direction today. There must be settled and sustainable economic convergence, but the direction needed to be set out, and it has been.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Prime Minister make it clear when the information published by the Government is sent out that every elector will be told that, if Britain is a member of the single currency, he or she will lose the right to elect or to remove on polling day those who make the economic decisions that affect our lives? Will he also point out that, under the Maastricht treaty, he himself would be in breach of the law if he tried to influence the decisions of the central bank? Is he aware that democracy is held by many people, including me, to be a national interest? Is he also aware that, on this matter, there are divisions in all parties and there will be a free vote in the House? Will he give us an assurance that the Cabinet will have the same right to freedom that was made available in 1975 during the previous referendum campaign?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
The Prime Minister: It is interesting to hear what I sometimes call the Thatcher-Portillo-Benn axis. I understand why my right hon. Friend holds that view very strongly indeed, but he must understand that there are those of us who are equally in favour of people having their say, which is why we will have the referendum. We have pledged that the final decision will be that of the British people. Pooling our sovereignty in this way, if it is in the national economic interest, better for British jobs, investment and industry and enhances British influence and standing in the world, is the right thing for Britain to do. We should have the campaign on the basis that people on either side of the argument are honourably intentioned

191
but that we disagree, not about whether we should follow the national interest, but about what it is. I happen to believe that it remains in the course that we have set out today.
Sir Michael Spicer: As part of the Prime Minister's changeover plan, has he turned his mind to the collapsing value of the euro? In forcing convergence and complying with the Maastricht treaty, is it his plan to shadow the euro downwards? If so, what will that mean for his inflation target?
The Prime Minister: That is not our policy. The hon. Gentleman and, I am afraid, the majority of Conservative Members want the euro to fail. That is all that they have left—[Interruption.] Literally, that is all that they have left to hope for: that the whole thing collapses. If the euro collapsed, even if we were out of it, it would be a disaster for this country. He and other Conservative Members should get into the real world today.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: While I welcome this most important step in producing a changeover plan, is my right hon. Friend aware that whether we join the euro is the one crucial decision to be taken during the lifetime of this Government? Is he aware that the sooner we make that firm commitment to join, even without setting a date, the more seriously we will be taken by our partners in Europe and the more fully we will be able to participate in the crucial decisions that lie ahead?
The Prime Minister: The conditions are important too. As I said, this is an economic union and conditions relating to economic convergence and to the five tests that the Chancellor set out, including those relating to economic reform, are important for monetary union to work in this country's national interest. So the direction is clear, but those conditions have to remain in place and be satisfied because that also is in the national economic interest.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: Would the Prime Minister recognise that this country, which has proudly defended its sovereignty for 1,000 years, has been told by every Conservative Prime Minister since the late Lord Stockton that we would enhance that sovereignty and our power and influence by drawing closer to Europe? Some of us still believe what we were told and followed the House of Commons whipping procedure at that time.
Will the Prime Minister recognise that his statement—which is a marked step forward in the intention of the Government to join a successful single currency—stripped of its party political rhetoric will be widely welcomed in areas of society way beyond his political party? With that in mind and given that the conditions entrenched in his statement have to be fulfilled before a successful application is made, will he recognise that that will be possible only if there is an all-party grouping to lead public opinion on the matter? Above all else, will he give the House a categorical assurance that he will lead that all-party alignment?
The Prime Minister: If I were a Conservative Member, I should reflect on what a former Deputy Prime
192
Minister and long-time member of the Conservative party has just said. I believe that the issue is one that should be dealt with across the parties and I certainly intend to be at the forefront of that campaign. I have never believed that this is a issue that can be dealt with by stealth, and I do believe that the economic conditions are important. The national economic interest must always be paramount, but I believe that that is satisfied by the course that we have set out today. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support.
Mr. Bill Rammell: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that, if we follow the advice of the Conservative party and stay out of the single currency for 10 years, not only shall we be repeating the mistakes of British history for the past 50 years, but it would represent an abdication of political leadership? Does he also agree that, if we believe that a strong single currency is in Britain's interests, striving to meet the five economic criteria set by the Chancellor should be an explicit aim of Government policy?
The Prime Minister: The Chancellor has already made it clear that we want to meet those tests. My hon. Friend is right about the 10 years: the two justifiable positions are to rule out joining a single currency for ever, as a matter of principle, or to set out the economic tests necessary to make joining in the national interest. The Leader of the Opposition must recognise that it is genuinely absurd to rule out joining for 10 years, for that would mean that we had absolutely no influence on decision making, but we would still have to do all the things later that we are setting out today. It is far better to make the test our national conditions and do our best to meet them.
Sir Archie Hamilton: For once, I find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister: it cannot be right for us to join the euro until we have seen convergence in the economic cycles of our economy and that of the Europeans, nor can it be right to join until we have seen the liberalisation of labour and capital markets on the continent. That will take years—so why does the Prime Minister not join my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in a policy that rules out joining for this Parliament and the next?
The Prime Minister: Because I do not believe that would be sensible or in the country's interests. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that convergence and economic reform are important, but we shall achieve them far better if we set out a clear direction for the country, which is what we have done today. The purpose of the national changeover plan is to put us in the position of making preparations so that we can make a choice. If we do not do that now, we will be in the position of being able to make no choice at all, and I cannot believe that that is right for this country.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Prime Minister agree that, on any objective account, the Common Market-European Union has not been a rip-roaring success? The common agricultural policy, as he knows and agrees, has been a total failure; the common fisheries policy is not worth a hatful of crabs; and there are 18 million people out of work in the Common

193
Market—and no signs of improvement. When we take all that into account, as well as the fact that, in seven short weeks, the euro has fallen by 7 per cent. against the dollar and 4.8 per cent. against the pound, all I have to say to my right hon. Friend—I am sure that he will take it on board—is that he should beware of those carrying out experiments in genetically modified currencies.
The Prime Minister: I think that the balance sheet shows that, overall, the European Union has been immensely positive for Europe and Britain's membership of the European Union has been positive or Britain. Of course we believe that the common agricultural policy needs reform, which is precisely why we are trying to make that reform happen, and of course we also believe that levels of unemployment in Europe are far too high. However, I do not believe that either the single market or the single currency has caused those problems. I think that long-term structural reform is necessary and that we should be part of that process to make sure that we put those people in Europe back to work.
One can criticise the European Union. However, if people take a step back and consider the history of Europe since the second world war, most would say that the European Union has been a success overall.
Mr. Archie Norman: Given that the Prime Minister has today reaffirmed his intention to hold a referendum on this subject, does he agree with Lord Neill, who said that the Government who conduct a referendum of this kind should not distribute at public expense literature—even purportedly factual literature—outlining or otherwise promoting their case?
The Prime Minister: As we said, we shall respond in due course to Lord Neill's recommendations. Of course the rules should be fair for both sides, and we shall ensure that they are. When we respond to Lord Neill's recommendations, we shall publish that response in full so that hon. Members may see it.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The entire House must welcome a statement that takes us towards completing the single market under the terms of the Single European Act, which was passed under the previous Administration. That Tory Government committed us to economic and monetary union.
The Prime Minister said that a Minister from each Department would be enlisted immediately to sell the benefits of the proposal and supervise the single currency changeover. Will he give the House a commitment that those Ministers will be enlisted, with the foot soldiers of the European movement—those who support the single currency--from now until the general election?
The Prime Minister: The purpose is to ensure that the Government are geared up properly for the necessary preparations. My hon. Friend makes a worthwhile point by mentioning the progress that we have already made in the European Union. The Single European Act, which was agreed by the previous Government, was a substantial act of integration, involving qualified majority voting on a scale not seen hitherto and breaking down a series of barriers and securing standardisation across many areas within the European Union. It is important to view this move as part of development in Europe.
194
All the way through, we have set out clearly the direction that we believe is right for the country and the economic conditions necessary to make EU membership in this country's interests. That balance between the direction and the conditions necessary to make that direction viable and sustainable for this country is precisely right.
Mr. Ian Taylor: The Prime Minister has acted in what I believe to be the national interest by engaging first gear and moving towards preparing to join the euro. Anyone who opposes a national changeover plan must not want to have a referendum, because it can be held only if the British people are prepared. Anyone who thinks that British industry should not prepare does not understand the challenges that it faces: all businesses, whether small or large, are part of a supply chain.
Will the Prime Minister recall the words of the chief economist at ICI who said that it would not damage investment in the United Kingdom if we did not join immediately, but any signal that we would be out for a protracted time could be extremely dangerous for this country's economy and investment? I hope that the Prime Minister continues to change up gears as he moves towards the referendum.
The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that, if we were to follow a course of hostility to the whole concept, it would damage this country's influence and the prospects for investment in the United Kingdom.
Mr. John Bercow: What is the right hon. Gentleman's empirical evidence?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asks what the evidence is. If he were to talk to most people around the world who invest in this country, he would learn that they recognise that it is important for Britain to be part of the European Union and to be positive about the single market and the single currency.
The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) is absolutely right: there can be no referendum without a national changeover plan. If we do not start the preparations now, we will not be able to join—even if we wish to do so. The Conservative party's official position today is that, even if joining is manifestly in the country's interest—even if it is plainly in the interests of industry, jobs and investment and even if business and industry are clamouring for us to join—we cannot be in a practical position to join. That is not a sensible position for a party that used to be able to speak for a section of business.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the irony that when a British Minister of Agriculture is, for the umpteenth time, in Brussels trying to negotiate radical reform of one common European policy—the common agricultural policy—he, as Prime Minister, is announcing to the House a plan to join another common policy, a common monetary policy? The damaging effect of that would be far greater than any effect that the wretched CAP could have.
The Prime Minister: I do not agree. I have set out the tests and economic conditions that have to be met for the common monetary policy. As I said, our position involves, first, seeing whether there is a period of sustained convergence; secondly, finding out whether the European Central Bank settles down, and, thirdly, dealing with the issues arising out of the Chancellor's five economic tests for flexibility and economic reform in Europe. We are perfectly placed. We can set out a direction for the country, set out the conditions and, as a result of the changeover plan, take advantage of the fact that we have made active preparations.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the Prime Minister appreciate, leaving aside the vital constitutional issues, that most serious economists would tell him that it will be impossible to say whether or not the five economic tests have been satisfactorily met until the completion of at least two economic cycles, which makes nonsense of the timetable that he is putting before the country?
The Prime Minister: We do consult industry widely. I have set out the position of the Confederation of British Industry, the British Chambers of Commerce and the British Bankers Association, and most people in the City of London disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is not correct to say that we are not listening to business and industry; we are doing so.
Mr. John Home Robertson: This statement is all the more welcome because it has been made regardless of the ravings of unelected, offshore press barons. The Leader of the Opposition talked about costs. Since the cost to the British economy of exchanges with European currencies in recent years has been equivalent to our contribution to the European budget, I suggest that the sooner we join the European single currency, the better.
The Prime Minister: The extraordinary thing about the Opposition's position is that they are opposed not only to the single currency, but to preparations. The right hon. Member for -Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) could have said that the time scale should be different, but he said that we should not even prepare and put ourselves in the position of being able to make a choice. That is plainly wrong. Without repeating to my hon. Friend what I have already said, I think it important that the conditions be met because they will make the satisfaction of our national economic interests the paramount consideration.
Mr. Howard Flight: In his statement, the Prime Minister hedged his election commitment on the timing of the referendum and said that it would occur after the next election, except in unforeseen circumstances. Will he be gracious enough to tell the House what circumstances he envisages might lead to an earlier referendum?
The Prime Minister: If they were foreseeable, they would not be unforeseen. In referring to unforeseen circumstances, I was repeating precisely the words that the Chancellor used in his statement of 27 October.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as he consults business about his plans, the only criticism that he will hear is that preparation should be faster and it is essential that he picks up a gear? If he speaks to executives in Marks and Spencer, as I have done, he will hear that they have already gone a long way towards preparation. [Interruption.] If he speaks to people who are running small and medium enterprises, he will be told that if a Government ever came to power wedded to the sort of Europhobia that we have heard from the Leader of Opposition today, that Government would put an end to their businesses. Will he give them the assurance that they want—that what the Government should provide is leadership and help with their preparations, and that what the country needs is a clear, fact-based debate so that we can all be of one mind when we go into the euro?
The Prime Minister: That is exactly right. We are of course undertaking the preparations in consultation with business and industry, which again is why it is so bizarre that we are told by the Opposition that we should not even make those preparations. I would point out to those Opposition Members who now even shout at the idea of Marks and Spencer that, when the euro notes and coins come in, a lot of British companies—some of them—will be accepting them. Therefore it is sensible, surely, to make preparations.
Mr. John D. Taylor: As one who identifies with Europe with ease and served in the European Parliament for 10 years, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the euro is driven more by politics than by economics. The promoters of the euro are people who believe in a united states of Europe—a Europe of the regions—and the diminution of the nation state. I am sorry to say it, but I think that the Prime Minister's statement could be the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom. However, he was honest when, in his statement, he said,
"I do not dismiss the constitutional … issues"
they are real, and he was right when he said that. Has he drawn those real constitutional issues to the attention of the palace?
The Prime Minister: The position that the right hon. Gentleman outlines is the "no, never" position. It is a position that says we never, ever go in. I totally understand that position, but I personally believe that, if it is in the national economic interest, we should go in. I put my statement in the way that I did, not to dismiss the constitutional issue, but simply to say that, in the end, the only question is, "Is it an absolute barrier to joining?" and my answer to that is no; if it is in the interests of British jobs, British business, British investment, we should do so. I think that that is correct; and the answer to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is no.

Business of the House
4.37 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for the remainder of this week will be as follows.
WEDNESDAY 24 FEBRUARY—Until 12.30 pm, a debate on
the third report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on composition, recruitment and training of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, followed by a debate on the sixth report from the Agriculture Committee on flood and coastal defence, followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Rating (Valuation) Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
THURSDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 1 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Scottish Enterprise Bill.
Motion relating to the Corporation Tax (Instalment Payments) Regulations.
TUESDAY 2 MARCH—Opposition Day [6th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 3 MARCH—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the House of Lords Bill.
THURSDAY 4 MARCH—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the House of Lords Bill.
FRIDAY 5 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 MARCH—Remaining stages of the House of Lords Bill.
Motion on the Implementation Bodies (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 9 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
WEDNESDAY 10 MARCH—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Continuation of the Budget debate.
THURSDAY 11 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 12 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 15 MARCH—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
The House will also wish to be reminded that, on Wednesday 24 February, there will be a debate on VAT fraud in intra-community trade, the Independent Fraud Office and the Court of Auditors annual report for 1997 in European Standing Committee B [Economic Secretary to the Treasury], and that, on Wednesday 10 March,
198
there will be a debate on transport infrastructure charging in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 24 February:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: OJC 349, Court of Auditors report for 1997; 14031/98, Independent Fraud Office; 10786/98, VAT Fraud in intra-community trade; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC 34-vi, HC 34-vii and HC 34-viii (1998–99).
Wednesday 10 March 1999:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 10778/98, Transport Infrastructure Charging. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC I 55-xxxvii (1997–98).]
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for this week's and next week's business and for an indication of the business the week. after. Can the Leader of the House confirm that we will be reverting to the usual pattern of having business questions on Thursdays?
Will the Foreign Secretary be making a statement to the House following the expiry of the deadline for the talks at Rambouillet? In view of the interest in the subject on which the Prime Minister has just made a statement, and the large number of hon. Members who were not called, can we have a full debate in Government time on the national changeover plan? During that debate, can we have an answer to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), namely, whether the Government plan to shadow the euro or not?
The Leader of the House has confirmed the date for the Budget, but can she confirm that we have not had the normal debate on public expenditure which used to take place in the autumn? Can she assure the House that that debate will be provided in due course, in Government time?
Tomorrow, the House is expecting the report on the tragic murder of Stephen Lawrence. Can the Leader of the House find time to debate the important issues raised by Sir William Macpherson and initiate a debate, which will, I hope, avoid any witch hunt of Sir Paul Condon? On that subject, can she guarantee that the House will be told the outcome of the leak inquiry? What has happened to the Home Secretary's plans to publish the draft freedom of information Bill, which is constantly trailed but never appears?
Finally, the Leader of the House has outlined the broad dates for the Easter and Whitsun recesses. Can she give the House the actual dates, so that it can plan its future arrangements with some certainty?
Mrs. Beckett: I can confirm that it is normally my intention to make the business statement on Thursday, but I thought that it would be for the convenience of the House to have the statement early this week, because we were not sitting last Thursday; otherwise, hon. Members might not have had much notice of the business to come.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be making a statement on issues relating to Kosovo. Obviously that is a matter that the Government will keep under review, but the right

199
hon. Gentleman will know that, at present, those issues continue to be discussed. He asked also for a debate in Government time on the matters on which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just made a statement. That statement was, of course, very full, although I recognise that many hon. Members wanted to speak. As the right hon. Gentleman will have realised from the business statement, there is time for the Budget debates; but we will bear in mind any request, made through the usual channels, for a wider debate on that matter.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a restoration of what he called the normal debate on public expenditure. To my recollection, what used to be the normal debate on public expenditure was dispensed with by the Conservative Government when I was shadow Chief Secretary, which was a considerable time ago, and they never managed to reinstate it. However, that is certainly a matter that I will bear in mind and will discuss through the usual channels.
We obviously intend to have a full statement on matters that are raised following the outcome of the Stephen Lawrence report, although I cannot add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said yesterday about that document being leaked.
It remains the Government's intention to publish the freedom of information Bill; and I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to give the right hon. Gentleman the actual recess dates.
Mr. George Galloway: When will either the Defence Secretary or the Foreign Secretary make a statement to the House on the dramatically escalating conflict in the skies over northern Iraq? In the past few hours, two 2,000 lb bunker-busting bombs—likened by Jane's Defence Weekly to tactical nuclear weapons—were dropped very near the important Iraqi city of Mosul. As you know, Madam Speaker, Britain is not at war with Iraq and any pilots dropping such bombs who either fell from the sky or were shot down would not be prisoners of war. They would be in a very perilous position indeed, having wreaked such devastation on Iraqi cities, and would not be protected by the conventions of war.
Mrs. Beckett: All I can say to my hon. Friend is that, as he knows, the Foreign Secretary is heavily engaged in discussions on other matters at present. We endeavour to keep the House informed of major and significant developments. With regard to his final remarks, may I say to him with respect that being prisoners of war did not much protect British pilots who were shot down over Iraq in the past?
Mr. Paul Tyler: We warmly endorse the request for a full debate in Government time on the euro changeover plan. May we have an answer to the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) put to the Prime Minister, which was not answered, about the timing of legislation for the referendum? We must ensure that it is in place before the next general election so that we can take advantage of the proper circumstances at the proper time.
On 4 February, I asked the Leader of the House whether she had taken into account the damaging statement made by her colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and
200
Food, which appeared to suggest that maternal transmission was now the accepted explanation of how BSE could continue beyond the 30-month period, and she undertook to draw that to the Minister's attention. Can we now have a full statement on the Government's attitude to this matter, as the chief scientific adviser has now gone on record as saying that beef on the bone should not be banned on scientific grounds and that it is entirely a matter of politics? I appreciate that it is not possible to give a date for further debate on this issue because of time constraints over the next few weeks, but can we have an assurance that the Minister will come before the House and explain that apparent change in attitude?
Mrs. Beckett: On the timing of the legislation for a referendum, we are not yet at that stage. The hon. Gentleman will remember, as will the whole House, that, when the House has decided that it wants a referendum to be conducted, it does not necessarily take long to pass the legislation—I believe that it took only six weeks to deal with legislation for a referendum on the Scotland Bill.
I did take up with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised with me about beef on the bone. I recall the observations of the chief scientific adviser, although not precisely in the terms to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. He will recall that my right hon. Friend made an extensive statement on that matter in the recent past—certainly since the hon. Gentleman raised the matter with me.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to the answer that my right hon. Friend gave my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), are not few other matters more important than a parliamentary discussion of the whole question of bombing and its endorsement? Incidentally, the endorsement of the bombing of the Al-Shifa factory in Khartoum has turned out to be a huge mistake.
There should be a proper discussion in Parliament of what on earth we are up to in Iraq. Is the bombing to continue? It is all very well for my right hon. Friend to say that last time our pilots were badly treated, but if there is no declaration of war they have no legal rights, as we understand them, under the Geneva convention. Even if a shell does not hit one of the Tornados, heaven help us—if a Tornado can malfunction over Lincolnshire, it can certainly malfunction over Iraq. We are drifting into constant war. What matter could be more important for the House of Commons to discuss?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I do not share my hon. Friend's analysis of the position in which we find ourselves in Iraq. He will be as conscious as I am of the fact that those engaged in overflying, whether in the north or the south of that unhappy country, are there to prevent the free operation of Iraq's armed forces in persecuting those who live in the north and south of that country. They are there in pursuit of United Nations policy.
On the general issue of our approach to these matters and the policy that drives that approach, I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall that, only yesterday, we had questions to the Secretary of State for Defence, when these matters may have been aired.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: The Government insist on giving the House of Commons these

201
inappropriate gift days, thereby preventing the Opposition from holding the Executive to account. If that should happen again, will the right hon. Lady procure the Prime Minister's attendance on the Tuesday before the free days, so that he can answer questions from the whole House?
Mrs. Beckett: I remind hon. Members that there was considerable pressure from both sides of the House—primarily from people who had not voted for us to run the experiment—to have different sitting hours on Thursdays and the possibility of some free days roughly during last week. The House took a decision on that matter, and many hon. Members who did not vote for it were foremost among those pressing for those days to be awarded. I further remind the hon. Gentleman that, although it has clearly slipped the memory of most Conservative Members, the Prime Minister attends Prime Minister's Question Time more consistently than either of his last two predecessors.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her answer about Iraq was totally unsatisfactory? British forces are continually engaged in conflict. They may be shot down, but they are killing civilians with no legal authority. Dennis Halliday, who is in charge of the United Nations oil-for-food programme, has said that between 5,000 and 6,000 Iraqi children under five are dying every month because of the sanctions. If the House of Commons cannot discuss that, and has to rely on the "Today" programme and "Newsnight", it reflects the Government's attitude to the role of Members of Parliament in this hugely important matter.
Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend has gone beyond the terms of our defence engagement in Iraq. I am sure that he is as conscious as the rest of us of the fact that it is not because of sanctions that children are dying for lack of food in Iraq. If anyone is dying for lack of food in Iraq—[Interruption.] I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), who is interrupting, that he knows that that is the truth. The Iraqi Government have the capacity to use the resources they get from selling oil to purchase food and medicines. If they do not to do so, because they choose to purchase arms, that is a tragedy—but it is not a tragedy of the British Government's making.
Mr. Eric Forth: May I press the Leader of the House on the matter of a public expenditure debate, which was raised by right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)? Is the right hon. Lady hiding behind the arrangements made by the previous Government? Is she suggesting that she wants to continue those arrangements, and approves of them, or will she bring the public expenditure debate more into line with what her right hon. Friend the Chancellor is doing? The House has the impression that she is trying to hide something. Why can we not have a proper debate on public expenditure in its own right as a matter of urgency, so that we know exactly where we stand on that key issue?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not hiding behind anything, and I am not sure what on earth the right hon. Gentleman thinks he is saying. I remind him and other Conservative Members that, when he was a Minister, the previous
202
Government made substantial changes to the handling of our debates on the Budget and on public expenditure. Those changes were never rectified. I agree that the matter should be looked at again, and it will be. It does not, however, lie in the mouths of Conservative Members to condemn the Government on a matter about which they did nothing.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Is it not absurd that the House of Lords is now on the second day of a debate on the White Paper on Lords reform, whereas we have so far been denied such a debate, which would be forward looking? There are obviously constraints, which we have mentioned, on discussing the Government's view of how the House of Lords should be reformed by way of the Bill currently before Parliament.
Furthermore, in any debate on the arrangements that the Prime Minister has just announced, could someone answer the point made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about the democratic control of the people over economic policy, and results through the ballot box?
Mrs. Beckett: It is true that the House of Lords is currently debating the White Paper, but the House of Lords does not have the Bill before it, because the Bill is being debated in the House of Commons. We have not ruled out a debate on the White Paper, but, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, it and the Bill deal with somewhat different matters: the Bill deals with the changes that the Government propose to make now, while the White Paper deals with the future. The fact that the House of Lords is discussing that does not mean that we should be discussing it at this stage.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield about what he described as the people's loss of democratic control over their affairs. I can only say that I have no doubt that these matters will be aired, and aired extensively, as they have been ever since the days when a Conservative Government took us into the European Community. I must add, however, that in my view both the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend are among those who would normally be telling us that the British people do not have enough democratic control over their financing in any event, irrespective of whether we join the single currency.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I acknowledge what the Leader of the House has said about the speed with which a Bill to implement the intention to hold a referendum may be pursued, and also what the Prime Minister said earlier about the need for fairness in the conduct of that referendum; but is the right hon. Lady in a position to say when the Government may present proposals for the establishment of an election commission with the remit of considering rules guaranteeing such fairness?
Mrs. Beckett: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, which was that the Government were considering the recommendations that had been made and would present proposals in due course.
Mr. John Wilkinson: This is the fourth year running in which the European Court of

203
Auditors has issued qualified accounts for the European Union. Would it not be appropriate for the debate on the EU's budget to take place in the Chamber, rather than being tucked away in Standing Committee B? The people of this country could then be made aware of the extent of the misappropriation of funds, the fraud and the endemic corruption in the organisation into which her quisling Government wish this country to integrate.
Mrs. Beckett: It was, in fact, the last Government who decided that such matters should be dealt with by the European Standing Committees, and their decision has been endorsed repeatedly by the House. As the hon. Gentleman will know, any Member can take part in the Standing Committees' debates. Only recently, the Government widened the remit of the Committees, enabling them to discuss the full range of issues—including legislative proposals from the European Commission—that may be relevant to European Union business. That is a major step forward. We are improving scrutiny of European business, without having to bring it back to the Floor of the House.
Mr. Christopher Gill: The Leader of the House will have observed the large number of right hon. and hon. Members who were not able to question the Prime Minister on the changeover plan. May I repeat the call for an opportunity for the issue to be debated?
May I also make a plea for a debate on Gibraltar on the Floor of the House? That might also enable us to discuss the wider issue of dispatching Her Majesty's armed forces to other regions of the world to defend or protect people who are not Her Majesty's subjects, while the livelihoods of Her Majesty's subjects in the colony of Gibraltar are threatened by the unreasonable and intolerant attitude of a so-called partner in the European Union.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot say that I feel inclined to offer to find time for a debate enabling us to discuss sending the armed forces to Gibraltar, but certainly the Government want any difficulties and disputes arising there to be settled as amicably as possible, and we are turning our mind to that.
I did indeed observe the number of Members who were anxious to take part in the exchanges about the Prime Minister's statement, but, as the hon. Gentleman will have noted, I have reminded the House that the Budget debate will provide an opportunity for the issue to be aired.
Mrs. Theresa May: Will the Leader of the House consider making time available for investigation of the procedures by which the House considers secondary legislation? Frequently, statutory instruments are available only late at the Vote Office, so that considerable time has passed before hon. Members are able to examine them and consider whether they wish to pray against them. SI 229, for example, was laid before the House on 5 February, but was not available to hon. Members until 15 February. SI 274 was laid before the House on 8 February, but was not available before 15 February. SI 337, laid on 15 February, was still not available as of this morning. Does the Leader of the
204
House agree that the House cannot perform its proper job of scrutinising Government legislation if Departments withhold the information necessary to do that job?
Mrs. Beckett: I am indeed mindful of the difficulties that are caused, and I experienced for many years in opposition. The hon. Lady will find that those difficulties are not new to the House—sadly—although they might be new to her. I share her view that the situation is not desirable. The Government are doing everything that we can to improve the handling of legislation, so that such delays do not occur. However, it takes time to rectify the very many defects that we inherited.
Mr. David Wilshire: I am sure that the right hon. Lady will know that, on Tuesday 9 February, I raised a point of order with Madam Speaker, on an apparent leak of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee's report on Sierra Leone. Subsequently—as I am sure that the right hon. Lady also will know—the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), provided a written answer, stating that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office first saw the report after 8 am on 9 February. Today, the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) admitted that, in January, he leaked a copy of the draft report to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, that statement does not tie in with the information that we received last week or with the stated events of 9 February.
Will the right hon. Lady therefore arrange for the Foreign Secretary to come urgently to the House to make a statement explaining exactly when he, his Ministers, his officials, his advisers or No. 10 Downing street first saw that leaked document, and what use they subsequently made of it? Was it that document that enabled them to rubbish a report that had not yet been published, by making statements to the media at 7 am on 9 February?
Mrs. Beckett: I realise, of course, that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Surely, therefore, he will be aware that it is currently a matter for that Committee, and that, if there has been a leak of a Select Committee report, procedures in "Erskine May"—which I believe he will find on page 670—state what should be done if such an issue arises. Although I bow to no one in my respect for the proper handling of the procedures of the House—personally, I cannot recall that I have ever leaked anything or ever intended to do so—I should tell the hon. Gentleman, and hope that no one will take frivolous offence at it, that for him to suggest that the Foreign Secretary should abandon the talks that we all hope will bring peace in Kosovo and come to the House to deal with a question on that matter puts into perspective the very strange priorities of Conservative Members.
Mr. Shaun Woodward: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of the resignation from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross)—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We cannot have a debate on that matter in business questions. I shall take the point of order after business questions have been completed.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate next week on the

205
Government's anti-democratic arrogance and techniques in using large amounts of public money to override public opposition to the euro and in using the trade union bloc of votes to override popular opposition to Labour's crony candidate for the leadership in Wales?
Mrs. Beckett: No.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Leader of the House will know that she has a responsibility to protect the interests of Back Benchers. May I therefore add to the calls made by my right hon. and hon. Friends that there should be a full debate—not only during the Budget debate, but in Government time—so that the House may properly consider what is unquestionably the most momentous decision to be made by a British Government in decades, if not centuries: surrender of the pound sterling in favour of a foreign currency?
The right hon. Lady should not be so contemptuous of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). We are talking about serious matters. Palming us off with the suggestion of raising them during the Budget debate is not worthy of her or her position. I advise her to reconsider, given her responsibilities to the House.
Mrs. Beckett: With respect, I did not palm anyone off. I shall be astonished if the Conservatives do not take the opportunity of the Budget debate to allude continually to those issues. Today's statement was about practical preparations to enable us to join the single currency should the British people decide at some point that we wish to do so. The notion that that is the most momentous announcement made in the House for centuries is extraordinary. Those of us who recall the announcement that we were to join the European Union, never mind the whipped decisions to join the European single market and give up the veto—all decisions taken by Conservative Governments—will view the hon. Gentleman's remarks with astonishment.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind the points made by her right hon. and hon. Friends about Iraq? If she cannot find time for a full debate on that, will she ensure that the Foreign Secretary comes to the House to make a statement as soon as he gets back from the Kosovo peace talks? This is a matter of huge national importance, and I invite the right hon. Lady to pay greater attention to the comments of her hon. Friends.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising that matter, because it enables me to correct something that I said in response to heckling by my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin. I referred to the purchase of arms, but I meant the expenditure of money on the Iraqi armed forces. I shall bear in mind the hon. and learned Gentleman's request for a statement, but I remind him that there was an opportunity to raise the issue at Defence Question Time yesterday.
Mr. Garnier: That is not the point.
Mrs. Beckett: This is business questions, when hon. Members can ask for opportunities to raise matters that there has not so far been an opportunity to raise.
206
There was an opportunity to raise this issue only yesterday at Defence Question Time. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary seeks meticulously to keep the House informed, but I suspect that, should he come to the House to make a statement in the near future, it is possible that Kosovo will be more immediately on his mind than Iraq.
Mr. Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the House always takes seriously the leaking of Select Committees or House reports. She will also be aware that our hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) volunteered to the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning that he had leaked an early draft of the Committee's report. Will she confirm to the House that the appropriate procedure is that adopted by the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning? The matter should be referred to the Liaison Committee, which is meeting on Thursday this week. It will report back to the Foreign Affairs Committee and thence, probably via this House, to the Privileges Committee. The report of the Privileges Committee, after evidence has been taken, will be debatable in the House.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The proper procedure, laid down in "Erskine May", provides for his Committee to discuss the matter and for it then to go to the Liaison Committee. I think—I am speaking from memory—that the proper course is for the Liaison Committee to send any matter that it thinks should be reported to the Privileges Committee. I am not sure that it goes via this House, but I shall check that. My hon. Friend is right: there is a proper procedure to be followed. I was confident that his Committee would follow it.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Yesterday, the Home Secretary drew attention to the distinction between run-of-the-mill statements and other statements. Will the right hon. Lady be able to tell us which are run-of-the-mill statements before they are made? If not, will she ask Ministers to make their statements to this House first, with no briefing around them beforehand?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman's question is based on a false premise, because that was not what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said. I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that I listened carefully, and my right hon. Friend said that there was a distinction—however much one might deplore it—between the leaking or other disbursement of relatively run-of-the-mill documents, such as Green Papers or White Papers, and the leaking of the report of a judicial inquiry, which is not in any way—[Interruption.] I suggest that Opposition Members take this seriously. A judicial inquiry is, in itself, a serious matter. The report is not a Government document, or a Government policy facing criticism. It is the report of a judicial inquiry in which the Government's only role was to set up the inquiry so that the matters could be examined. The Government have nothing to defend or to be concerned about in terms of the publication and leaking.
As for the hon. Gentleman's desire to have matters reported to the House first, I entirely share it. I would simply say that, given that the action yesterday of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the Conservative spokesman, was to deplore the Home

207
Secretary's action in launching an injunction in an attempt to protect the interests of the House, I take his exhortations with a pinch of salt.
Mr. John Bercow: Given the breath-taking inadequacy of the statement from the Prime Minister which the House has just endured, will the Leader of the House find time for a statement next week by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he is able, once and for all, to commit the Government to publish a White Paper on the economic, political and democratic implications of abolishing the pound? Does the right hon. Lady understand that the publication of such a White Paper would enable the Chancellor to declare whether he agrees with the former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez that the European single currency is the greatest abandonment of sovereignty since the foundation of the European Community? Moreover, it will enable the Chancellor to explain why he believes that the control of the British economy should be given up permanently to people whom we do not elect and cannot remove.
Mrs. Beckett: No doubt, there will come a time when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may publish documents dealing with those issues, but, since he is supposed to be publishing his Budget in the relatively near future, I doubt whether he is working on those at the moment. As for the hon. Gentleman's reference to the breath-taking inadequacy of the statement, I have observed—as, I am sure, has the House—that there is no statement that has yet succeeded in taking away his breath.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: May I reiterate my request to the Leader of the House, made on 4 February, that she arrange for a statement by the Secretary of State for Health on the progress of the royal commission on long-term care which—she will recall from the Health Secretary's statement on 4 December 1997—he confidently expected would report within 12 months, and which is now more than two months late?
Mrs. Beckett: I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request, which I will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who I am confident will be anxious to publish whatever he can as soon as he can.

Points of Order
5.13 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I raise a gentle point of order on behalf of a minority—a quartet of us? I refer to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) and me. We have no more wisdom than anyone else in this House, but it so happens that we are the four who have actually been to Iraq and have seen the holocaust. There are 560,000 dead children, and we have seen the pictures on the front of The Tribune newspaper. When one sees—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I must equally gently remind the hon. Gentleman—who has long experience in the House—that there are other opportunities to pursue a matter of argument. That is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Shaun Woodward: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware of the resignation this morning of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), following his leak to the Foreign Secretary of a Select Committee document in January. You will also be aware of a number of written questions to the Foreign Office asking when exactly it was shown drafts or amendments of the Sierra Leone report. The answers given have at best shown grave discrepancies, and the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) last week by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), could have led hon. Members to believe that the Foreign Office had no sight of any document before 8 o'clock on the day of the embargo.
In the light of the resignation, and the admission this morning by the hon. Member for Dundee, West that he had shown a copy of the draft report to the Foreign Secretary one month before publication, is it not your view that the Foreign Secretary is not only complicit but should come to the House to make a statement? Has he applied to make such a statement?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the latter point, no; but it is not a matter for the Chair to have a view on. The hon. Gentleman's point of order was presaged by a question from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and, in the course of exchanges, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), set out the exact position. I understand that the matter is already being handled by the Committee and, following the due process, the matter may come before the House at some subsequent time.
Mr. David Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there not a clear distinction between the procedure that the Foreign Affairs Committee must adopt, and that has quite rightly been put in train with the Procedure Committee, to deal with the leaking of the report, and the reply to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), which was disingenuous in suggesting that the first sight the Foreign Secretary and his Ministers had of the report

209
was on the morning of its publication, when it is clear from the statement by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) that the Foreign Office had sight of the report a month earlier? Have the Foreign Secretary or any of his Ministers given any indication to the Chair that they want to correct that misapprehension?
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Accepting—you have already guided us most helpfully on the point—what the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has said about the role of the Foreign Affairs Committee in investigating its side of the matter, which it properly must do, can you advise the House whether there is anything that we can do to find out what the role of the Foreign Office was in the matter?
The role of the Committee and its members will be properly investigated, as the Chairman has said, but how can we pursue the role of the Foreign Office, especially in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) have said about the inadequacy—I put it no more strongly—of recent Foreign Office answers?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Those are not points of order on which the Chair can rule. I have answered the question whether notification of any statement has been received. No such notification has been received. When Ministers make statements is entirely a matter for the Government. There are, of course, many ways open to right hon. and hon. Members to raise points of debate, and I am sure that it is not beyond their ingenuity to find those ways if there are points of argument that they want to pursue.
Sir George Young: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be
210
in order for the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), to make a statement to clarify the apparent discrepancies that have been pointed out?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that that again is not a matter on which the Chair can rule. The Leader of the House will have heard the request that was made, and—
Mr. Forth: Not here.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was made at an earlier stage.
The Leader of the House will have the matter drawn to her attention, but it is entirely a matter for the Government to decide when and which Ministers make statements to the House.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The reputation of the House is largely in the hands of the conduct of its Members, and a more onerous responsibility falls on the senior Members, and especially the Prime Minister. In response to a question from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) earlier today, the Prime Minister made a remark—I am not certain that it will have been picked up by the reporters—about the cracked Wedgwood argument. He then failed to address the points that were put to him. Could you draw his attention to the fact that such conduct does not do the reputation of the House any good?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear the remark and I cannot make a retrospective ruling as to whether points of propriety are raised. There can be no further point of order on which I can rule. We now come to a ten-minute Bill.

Fuel Safety
5.20 pm
Mr. Fraser Kemp: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in certain premises; to raise public and professional awareness of the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning; to make new provision with respect to the maintenance of fuel appliances; and for connected purposes.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to present this Bill. I became involved in this important subject following the death of a constituent who was 19 years old, a student at Durham university and a talented and admirable young woman. She died in a rented house in multiple occupation because of the inadequacies of the heating equipment. That was the second death of a 24-year-old student in my constituency, because two years previously another student, Glen Haliday, died.
Thank my hon. Friends and other hon. Members who are present in the Chamber, many of whom are here because they have had similar experiences in their constituencies. They have had to sit down with the parents and loved ones of those who have lost their lives through carbon monoxide poisoning. I know that there are people observing our proceedings today who have also recently lost loved ones through similar terrible tragedies.
The Bill is in memory of those who have died, as well as an attempt to prevent such deaths in future. It is a sad fact that, statistically, every Member of Parliament will at some stage in their parliamentary careers have to deal with a similar tragedy in their constituencies. Recently, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), four people—a mother, father and two young sons—died of carbon monoxide poisoning.
The Bill is a reasoned, long-overdue and sensible measure. That is endorsed by the support that it has received from my hon. Friends and from Conservative Members, Liberal Members and the minor nationalist parties. I am grateful to all those who have supported the Bill.
The Bill is in three sections. The first would provide, initially, for the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in houses in multiple occupation. The second part would place a duty on the Government to raise public and professional awareness of the dangers, and the third would make new provision for the maintenance of heating equipment and introduce tougher penalties for those who abuse it.
I accept that carbon monoxide detectors are a second line of defence, but they are important. We must ensure that all equipment in the home works correctly, but detectors should be installed as a second line of defence. I would like to see in Britain the same culture for carbon monoxide detectors that we have for smoke alarms. Twenty years ago, smoke alarms were costly and rare. Today, they are relatively cheap and many houses in Britain are much safer because of their installation. We should develop the same attitude to carbon monoxide detectors. That would help to reduce their price, although they are relatively inexpensive at the moment at around £30.
Before I came into the Chamber at 2.30 pm, I talked with a Mrs. Smith whose husband tragically died 10 days after their house had been checked by an engineer.
212
Everything appeared to be in working order, but carbon monoxide—an evil, silent and insidious killer—had crept through and killed Mr. Smith. So detectors are important.
Another case of which I am aware involves a Mr. Nigel Cullen, who had read about the existence of carbon monoxide detectors. Part of the problem is that not many people know that audible detectors can be purchased, as can other equipment that will shut down the supply if it detects the gas. Mr. Cullen read about the detectors in the Nottingham Evening Post and decided to buy one, which he sent to his daughter, a student at Newcastle university.
Mr. Cullen's daughter shared a house with four other people. As soon as the detector was fitted in that house, it registered carbon monoxide present at 10 times the danger level. There is no doubt that that detector at least prevented Mr. Cullen's daughter and her housemates from becoming seriously ill, and it may have saved their lives.
The press has been criticised in the House over the past couple of days, but some newspapers with which I have been involved—such as the Nottingham Evening Post, the Sunderland Echo, The Northern Echo and The Journal—have played an important part in recent months in raising public awareness and making sure that lives are saved.
My second intention with the Bill is to raise public awareness. I am grateful to this Government, and also to the previous Government, for spending some money on television advertising. A campaign is running at present, and hon. Members may have seen it over recent weeks. That is another factor in helping to raise awareness, as is the inclusion in 20 million gas bills of a leaflet with a helpline number which people can contact if they are worried about the problem. Public awareness is important, and Parliament should place a duty on Secretaries of State to ensure that major safety campaigns take place.
Professional awareness is also important, especially in the health service. We must ensure that there is good co-ordination between health service professionals. One of the problems is that carbon monoxide poisoning is very slow. Because its symptoms include headaches and sickness, it is often mistaken for influenza and can be hard to identify, even for people in the medical profession. The question of public and professional awareness is therefore very important.
Finally, the Bill would require landlords to ensure that equipment is checked annually. Such maintenance is vital: no one would get in a car that had not been MOT-ed, for fear that it was dangerous. We should have the same attitude to equipment in the home, which should be installed by qualified people. Landlords who want to install such equipment on the cheap, and play God with people's lives, should suffer the consequences.
Legislation is not tough enough, and we need to send out the message that we will not settle for anything less than the highest standards, which are needed to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. I accept that carbon monoxide poisoning does not respect class or housing tenure, but the evidence is that those at the bottom end of the housing ladder are more likely to suffer from it.
With the indulgence of the House, I should like to make a further point. When we think of carbon monoxide poisoning, we tend to think in terms it happening as a result of faulty gas equipment. However, the problem is

213
not confined to gas equipment. On 5 February, I received a letter from a woman with whom I used to work before I became a Member of Parliament. The letter states:
"Dear Fraser,
On January 7th 1999 my partner, Michael Price, tragically died of carbon monoxide poisoning. He was only 45 and we were looking forward to marrying and having a family. The source of the poisonous gas was a blocked flue from a stove in his sitting room, which was burning anthracite. I applaud your efforts to introduce awareness of the need for safety and the extended use of alarms to detect carbon monoxide. I would especially urge you to take this opportunity to point out very strongly that gas appliances are not the only potential source of carbon monoxide. Too many people are unaware that the burning of any fuel which creates a carbon deposit"—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has used up his time. In view of the House's crowded schedule for the rest of the day, I must ask him to finish.
Mr. Kemp: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me simply say that carbon monoxide can come in many forms. I ask for the House's support.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Fraser Kemp, Mr. Alan W. Williams, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Paul Keetch, Ms Jackie Lawrence, Mr. David Ruffley, Mr. John Swinney, Mr. Stephen Hepburn, Mr. Roy Beggs and Mr. John Cummings.

FUEL SAFETY
Mr. Fraser Kemp accordingly presented a Bill: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 April, and to be printed [Bill 49].
Orders of the Day

  Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
  [Relevant documents: The Fifth Report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1997–98, on Pensions on Divorce (HC 869) and the Government's Response thereto (HC 146 of Session 1998–99.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and that Madam Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  5.32 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill marks another step in our modernisation of the welfare state to ensure that it can meet the needs of the next 50 years. Across Government, we are taking action to tackle the causes of social and economic failure. We are investing £40 billion extra in health and education, reforming the tax and benefit system to make work pay and tackling the scandal of poverty pay with the first ever national minimum wage. We are also helping 6.5 million families with the biggest ever rise in child benefit. In short, we are taking action today to deal with immediate problems, but our central objective is to confront the causes of social and economic failure in the future.
  In this last year of the 20th century-50 years after the start of the welfare state—it is a scandal that a child can still be born poor, live poor and then die poor. We are tackling the poverty of expectation that leaves a generation of children expecting nothing better for themselves than a lifetime on benefit. We know too well the effect that years of unemployment can have on individuals. It demoralises them, and it is debilitating. That is why we need a radical change in culture, both for individuals and for Government. We are tackling the poverty of opportunity that allows people to be written off, or, sometimes, to write themselves off.
  The Bill is an essential part of our strategy. Benefits alone cannot tackle this failure. It is easy for the Government to send out a giro, but a giro will not get anyone a job, or improve their skills. Benefits can, of course, treat the symptoms of poverty, but they cannot tackle its causes. Complacency—an acceptance of social and economic failure as part of the natural order of things—would be a betrayal of the generations that follow us. We are determined to act, to make a difference and to be judged on our actions.
  Today, we take reform a step further in four key areas. It may be helpful to the House if I set out how I intend to deal with the Bill.
  First, we are introducing a radical package of measures to keep people in touch with the labour market, including the single gateway and the new employment zones. Secondly, we are modernising disability benefits so that they will provide more help for disabled people in greatest need, as well as providing opportunities for disabled people who want to work.

  215
  Thirdly, we are modernising and extending entitlement to bereavement benefits to help families with children who need it most. Fourthly, we are starting the process of pension reform, to ensure that the system provides security in retirement for future pensioners and allows pension sharing on divorce.
  In addition, the Bill provides for a number of other measures, including a new housing benefit pilot and a power to incur expenditure to enable my Department to acquire the information technology equipment that it will need if it is to deliver a modern service and to undertake preparatory work for the possible introduction of the euro, as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon.
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: My right hon. Friend mentioned the single gateway, which has been received by constituents whom I have consulted and representative groups in my area with considerable enthusiasm. Will people with disabilities who attend the interviews be treated with dignity and respect, so that we do not have a repeat of the approach taken under the Tory benefit integrity project? Can he also give an assurance that the staff doing the interviews will be properly trained?
  Mr. Darling: Yes. Lest my hon. Friend and others thought that I had finished with the Bill, having gone through the four main points, and was going to talk about the euro for the rest of the afternoon—no matter how tempting that would be because of the reaction of Conservative Members—I was about to turn to the single gateway. I will deal with the points that he raised and, if I miss any of them out, I will certainly give way.
  However, I do not want to be denied my pleasure on the subject of the euro. One final point is that preparation for it and the delivery of a host of other measures within the Department clearly will depend on our having the IT equipment. The reform of child support, which will come forward in the next year or so, the single gateway and so forth will all require new IT equipment. At this stage, I will merely say of the clause that not only is Treasury approval required before detailed work is undertaken, but expenditure can be undertaken only if approved by the House.
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will deal with the rest of the Bill, but if he wishes to intervene on this point, I will certainly give way.
  Mr. Forsythe: It is an important point for Northern Ireland. Does the Bill in its entirety extend to Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will see at the end of the Bill those parts that apply to Northern Ireland. He will also be aware that, as part of the Government's settlement following the Belfast agreement last year, it is
  216
  envisaged that there should be a level playing field throughout Great Britain for national insurance. That is what employers and business want.
  Mr. John Hayes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: Not at the moment.
  Large parts of the Bill, excluding the single gateway, apply to Northern Ireland. Only certain parts of pension sharing on divorce, which I will deal with later, will apply there as family law in Northern Ireland is different from that in Scotland and in England and Wales.
  I am conscious of the fact that a time limit has been imposed and that a large number of hon. Members want to speak, so I will deal with the single gateway, which is in many ways one of the most important features of the Bill. It reflects a radical change in approach and culture in the benefits system.
  Clause 47 introduces the new single gateway for people of working age. As I said, far too many people are written off or have allowed themselves to be written off and have resigned themselves to a lifetime on benefit. Too many children are growing up in workless households and have come to expect nothing better for themselves. The Government need to tackle that poverty of expectation.
  For example, the present system assumes that in many cases lone parents will stay on benefit for 16 years or longer. If a lone parent wants to work, she is on her own—without access to training, support or advice. The new deal takes a new approach. It provides active support not merely for lone parents, but for people with disabilities, as well as for the long-term and young unemployed. It is worth noting that more than 210,000 young people are already on the new deal and that 60,000 people, who would have been on the dole if we had not taken that action, are now in paid employment.
  Mr. Eric Forth: What will happen if the lone parent refuses to work, or does not want to do so?
  Mr. Darling: One thing is clear: we will not compel lone parents to work—
  Mr. Forth: Oh!
  Mr. Darling: That should not be news to the right hon. Gentleman. He is in the House often enough, although he may not listen to what is said. We have made it abundantly clear that, as regards the gateway, everyone of working age coming through the benefits system will be required to attend an initial interview to be told their options. However, we have made it clear that lone parents and the disabled will not be compelled to take a job.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Darling: I am glad to have the support of Opposition Members. I shall give way in a moment. The point is that the single gateway builds on the new deal, because it provides everyone of working age with advice on their options in work, training and child care. Everyone of working age entering the benefits system will, for the

  217
  first time, get the help that they need and have the right to expect. In turn, they have a clear responsibility to take up that help, so, as a condition of receiving benefit, they will be required to take part in an interview to find out about the opportunities that are open to them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) asked whether we will be sensitive to people faced with particular difficulties. Of course we shall—we want the single gateway to work. One of the aspects of the new deal by which I am most struck is that those who have been on it speak openly about the qualitative difference between the service they receive now and the service they used to receive when the Tories were in office. There is another difference—
  Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Darling: I shall certainly give way, both to the hon. Gentleman and to my right hon. Friend, but let me finish my point.
  Unlike what happened in the past, we now offer help through the national child care strategy; the working families tax credit, which helps to make work pay; and the minimum wage, which the Conservatives oppose and have pledged to repeal, but which will get rid of the poverty arising from low wages. There is help available now that was never available in the past, and having a personal adviser means that people can be taken through the gateway system and have their options explained to them individually. I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) first, and then to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
  Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend is embarking on a herculean task and we wish him well. However, may I pursue the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw)? We all understand my right hon. Friend's objectives, but I am sure that he understands the situation that he has inherited. Disabled people, including some of my constituents, are extremely worried about the adjudication—often medical adjudication—that may lead to benefits being cut off. Will he give an assurance that a more professional approach will be taken to such cases? Has he made progress on the issue of the time that people wait for their appeal?
  Mr. Darling: We are making progress on the issue of appeals. I recently met Judge Harris, who is in charge of the independent tribunal service, and the chief executive of the new agency that the Government are establishing. I impressed on them that the current delays—the average is seven months—are completely unacceptable, especially because most cases deal with people on extremely low incomes, who do not have the leeway for survival that a well-off person has. We are taking a number of steps—I am bound to say to say that some are controversial, for example, the composition of tribunals—because the current position is not satisfactory. It might be a cliché that justice delayed is justice denied, but I am genuinely concerned.
  On the quality of medical examinations, I shall speak later about the ending of the all-work test and about its replacement. All of us have had brought to our attention
  218
  constituency cases where matters were unsatisfactory. We are determined to address such cases, because the integrity of the system means that people have to have confidence in the decisions taken.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Darling: Lest the hon. Gentleman becomes over-excited, I give way.
  Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman is in no danger, but I am grateful none the less. When someone does not give good cause for failing to attend an interview under the single work-focused gateway, how quickly will the decision be taken to deny that individual benefit, and will the denial be absolute or partial?
  Mr. Darling: We have made it clear that, if someone enters the benefits system, one of the conditions of receiving benefit is attendance at an interview. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would, on behalf of his constituents, be more interested in what we are doing to help people than in focusing on the negative aspects.
  Mr. Bercow: Answer the question.
  Mr. Darling: I have answered it, but for the avoidance of doubt, let me repeat my answer. It will be a necessary condition of receiving benefit that a person attends an initial interview. In cases where there is good cause for failing to attend, for example, when a person has recently been bereaved, or—
  Mr. Bercow indicated dissent.
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman might not be bothered about those things, but it is important that we are sensitive to the requirements of the public. When there is good cause, the interview can be deferred so that, when the person attends the interview, he or she is in the right frame of mind to hear what options are available.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Alan Simpson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Darling: I shall give way, but hon. Members should not blame me if one or two of them are cut out of tonight's debate. I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter).
  Mr. McWalter: I have written to my right hon. Friend about this point, but I seek further clarification now. Subsection (6) of clause 47 says that people might not be asked to go for an interview, subject to various regulations. That is an important point, as some people have conditions that would be exacerbated by the offer of an interview—I refer particularly to those who suffer from manic depression or ME. I seek my right hon. Friend's assurance on that important point. In saying that everyone will be asked to present for an interview, will he emphasise that the operation of subsection (6) may mean that not quite everyone must attend?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is correct—he has raised this matter before. Like our approach to the new deal,

  219
  we are anxious to ensure that people coming through the system view the single gateway as helpful. We know that some people are reluctant to attend interviews and are determined—for not very good reasons—not to co-operate. We must be tough with them. However, there are other people who suffer from particular disabilities—I mentioned the cases of someone who has been recently bereaved or of a lone parent who has difficulty with child care arrangements—and we must be sensitive.
  The Bill gives us the power to make regulations so that we do not get into a situation where no reasonable person could justify our request. I assure the hon. Member for Buckingham and my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead that we are determined to be reasonable in our approach because we want it to work. We know that we must take fairly firm action with some people. However, it would be unreasonable to tell others—who have perfectly good reasons for refusing—that they must present for an interview within three days. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) as he was so anxious to intervene.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; I hope that he will find my intervention helpful. Opposition Members are seeking to portray the measure as an attack on the poor and the unemployed.
  I am the chair of the inter-agency monitoring group on the new deal in Nottingham, and we have discovered that compulsion is not the problem. The most important feedback that we have received is that the morass of means-tested benefits we inherited from the Tories has left people in danger not of being part of a something-for-nothing society, but of working for nothing for some time because of complications in the operation of the wage and benefit systems. In Committee, will my right hon. Friend look carefully at the changes that he is introducing to see whether they will extricate people from dependency on means-testing? Will he consider also the problems of those in low-wage employment? Unless we alter the taper, there is a danger that they will face a marginal tax rate of 95p in the pound.
  Mr. Darling: I knew that my hon. Friend was an office bearer in several organisations, but not in the Nottingham group. I take at face value his assurance that he is being helpful.
  I shall explain a number of things. My hon. Friend's most important point concerned the position of people who are on benefit and who find that work does not pay because they lose too much money for precisely the reasons that he gave. We introduced the working families tax credit—which the Conservative party opposes and has pledged to repeal, despite the fact that it will cost many people up to £17 a week in an effective tax rise—because we want to ensure that people coming off benefit and into work see increases in their pay packets. That is one of the most significant reforms of the benefit and tax systems that this country has seen in the past 25 years. I believe that it will be welcomed warmly, especially when people see it beginning to work upon its introduction in October next year.
  My hon. Friend is right: we must examine many parts of the benefit system—for example, housing benefit. Some measures in the Bill will encourage work. We have
  220
  much more to do and this is not the last word on welfare reform—far from it. As to means-testing—I dare say that this point will be raised in the course of the evening, if not in further interventions in my speech—there has been a growing disparity in incomes over the past 20 years, and possibly before that. The Government make no apology for the fact that, on our election, we went out of our way—especially in the Chancellor's first two Budgets—to provide additional help to those at the lowest end of the income scale: the disabled and pensioners. That involves having regard to people's income and means, and I make no apology for that because we have a lot of work to do in catching up with and helping those people who have suffered at the hands of the Tories. Conservative Members may complain about means-testing today, but they doubled it during their 18 years in power.
  Mr. Hayes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: Not now. I shall make some progress and then I shall give way.
  The single gateway is part of a wider strategy to ensure that people have the opportunity to work. The Bill introduces two further measures to help people into work. Clause 48 requires joint claims to jobseeker's allowance from young couples who do not have children, so that both will have access to support and advice from the Employment Service and, if they have been unemployed for more than six months, to the new deal for young people. Clause 49 provides for the new £112 million programme of employment zones to cut through red tape and focus resources on areas that suffer from persistently high unemployment, such as those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South referred.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is taking steps to ensure that, using the new personal job accounts, we shall be able to help unemployed people aged 25 or over to improve their skills and get extra help in finding work.
  By pioneering a different approach, we are doing far more to help people get into work. Of course, that is just one part of our overall strategy. We are determined to do more for people who cannot work, so the Bill also reforms and modernises support for disabled people.
  We consulted on all our proposals. More than 300 responses were received from local and national organisations and individuals, including Members of the House. The disability benefits forum, which the Government set up in 1998, played a particularly important role in that consultation. Even though members of the forum did not agree with us in a number of key areas—which is not surprising in some cases—their advice was helpful and they have asked to meet us again during the Bill's passage through Parliament.
  We are doing a great deal to improve the opportunities and support available to disabled people, but before I describe the ways in which we are doing so, I shall give way to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. Hayes: The right hon. Gentleman will know that I am, proudly, a joint chairman of the all-party disablement group. Although the forum was welcomed by all members of the group, he must surely acknowledge, and apologise to the House for, the fear and trepidation caused by a

  221
  number of ill-judged statements by those on the Government Benches, including Ministers. Those statements have severely damaged the expectations of disabled people and picked out and frightened the most needy and vulnerable. I hope that the Secretary of State will take this opportunity to dissociate himself from those remarks and apologise for them.
  Mr. Darling: I find the hon. Gentleman's remarks a bit hard to take. He should perhaps read his deputy leader's speeches to Tory party conferences in the late 1980s and 1990s. The hon. Gentleman was not a Member of the House when the benefit integrity project was set up, but he might care to remember which Government introduced that.
  We are taking measures across the board that will go a long way towards helping people with disabilities. For example, we are investing in the new deal for disabled people and introducing the disabled person's tax credit, which, from October, will provide a guaranteed minimum income of at least £150 a week for a single disabled person moving from benefit into work. The new disability income guarantee is worth at least £128 a week for the most severely disabled people under 60 who are getting income support. We are building on our commitment to comprehensive civil rights with the Disability Rights Commission.
  All those reforms are an essential part of our overall approach. We want to do more to help people into work, but we are conscious of the fact that there are many people who cannot work. I make it clear today, as I did when I made my initial statement on these matters last October, that no one receiving benefit will lose their benefit entitlement as a result of the changes when they are introduced. We want to provide opportunity where once there was none.
  I shall draw attention to a number of issues that I know hon. Members will want to debate. Clause 50 ends the incapacity benefit all-work test and the assumption that everyone on incapacity benefit cannot and will not work. The new assessment introduced by the Bill will consider what people can do, not just what they cannot. No disabled person will be forced into work, but together the single gateway and the new assessment will help disabled people to identify their options and plan for a return to work, where that is possible.
  If we want to do more for the people who need help most, we have to ask ourselves how we use our resources, and we are making changes to the incapacity benefit regime. Clause 52 introduces a fairer partnership between the state and individuals by changing the way that occupational or personal pensions are treated for incapacity benefit.
  In 1953, only 28 per cent. of people had an occupational pension. Today, 86 per cent. of men and 77 per cent. of women working full-time have one. As a result, about a third of people receiving incapacity benefit also get payments from an occupational or personal pension and some of them receive a pension of more than £150 a week—yet incapacity benefit was intended to replace lost income from work. It was never intended as a top-up to income in early retirement, which is what it has become in many cases. A quarter of men over 60 are on incapacity benefit and many of them were channelled into claiming that benefit by the Conservatives in the 1980s to hide what was happening with the unemployment figures.
  222
  We want to reward thrift and saving. People should be rewarded for making their own pension provision, so under our proposals people will be able to keep the first £50 a week of any early retirement pension paid, but their incapacity benefit will be reduced by a taper of 50p for every additional £1 of pension received. That is reasonable when one bears it in mind that people would need an income from their occupational pension of nearly £10,000 a year before they lost all their incapacity benefit.
  I can tell the House also—this matter was raised during consultation—that the £50 threshold will be kept under review to ensure that it remains at a fair and reasonable level.
  Dr. Ian Gibson: First, does my right hon. Friend agree that removing the 14 physical descriptors would be major step forward in scrapping the all-work test? Descriptors that define how people can lift sacks of potatoes and cartons of milk are not consistent with the modern medical world. They must be removed if the Government are to introduce factors to determine what people can do.
  Secondly, will my right hon. Friend consider the iniquity of medical doctors receiving £78 for each session, the duration of which is ill-defined and which often last for between one and five minutes? By my calculations, by doing those tests five days a week and seven months a year, they can earn about £140,000. It is always the same doctor whom clients in my surgery say they have met. Is not £140,000 a lot of money for taking a few pence away from people who are severely inconvenienced?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are becoming very long and many hon. Members are waiting to speak. I ask hon. Members to be brief in their interventions.
  Mr. Darling: I shall try to be brief in my reply.
  If my hon. Friend has a doctor in his constituency who is earning £140,000 a year for seeing patients for one minute at a time, I ask him to write to me and I shall deal with that. I should be interested if someone were doing so because I certainly have not come across such a case. Perhaps everyone is keeping very quiet about it, but I should be surprised if that were so. My hon. Friend raised a second point about descriptors—
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Darling: If my hon. Friend will contain herself, I shall give way in a moment. I am mindful of the fact that I have been speaking for nearly half an hour and I have by no means finished.
  On descriptors, we have considered the medical side of the new personal capacity assessment. I have considered it on a number of occasions. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) has a medical background and he will know that, whatever system is used for making assessments, it is always possible for someone to say that it is unsatisfactory and deficient in some respect.
  We have compared the system with what happens in other parts of the world. Members of the disability benefits forum are also considering it. We want to get it right

  223
  because it is not in our interests to have a scheme that does not enjoy people's confidence. Introducing a scheme that has 100 per cent. support will be difficult, because in my experience anyone who falls foul of a scheme tends to find something wrong with it. People who get through a system tend not to think that it is too bad.
  I gave an undertaking earlier that the medical test for incapacity benefit will remain the same, but we are adding the capacity test to ensure that we have a better chance of finding out what people can do rather than what they cannot do.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Darling: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) and then I shall speak for five minutes solid before I give way to somebody else.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend's plans to means-test incapacity benefit will mean that someone who becomes disabled, let us say, in their late 40s—my age—who has saved for a pension will lose all entitlement to incapacity benefit if they have an income of about £9,300. That is about half average earnings. Will not such people feel absolutely betrayed because, even though they have paid national insurance contributions for 20 years or more, they will receive no benefit as a result of those contributions?
  Mr. Darling: If we were starting from scratch—if there were no incapacity benefit scheme—I do not believe that we would now set up a scheme that ignored the fact that many people receiving IB have quite substantial incomes from their pensions. Perhaps my hon. Friend would ignore it, but I am afraid that I would not because, in any social security system, we must have regard to how much we can spend overall and where we spend it.
  We could, and should, do far more to help people who need help, especially younger people who are disabled—I am about to outline measures that we are taking in that regard. It is scandalous that we have been paying so little to people who have been severely disabled. However, we can assist those who need our help only if, at the same time, we consider how we are spending our money overall.
  I do not believe that my proposal in the Bill to create a £50 disregard so that anyone with a pension will always be £50 a week better off—the average payment is about £85—is unreasonable. There will always be a balance between what the state provides and what individuals provide. That has been a feature of our social security system for the past 50 years. I believe that the proposal for the disregard and the taper is reasonable. There is a further proposal—
  Ms Joan Walley: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Darling: Unless I make progress, no one else will get to speak. However tempting that might be, it would not be fair. However, I will give way to my hon. Friend later.
  224
  Clause 51 restores incapacity benefit to its original intention—helping people who lose their income when illness or disability causes them to stop work. We are strengthening the link between recent work and entitlement to IB by reforming the contribution conditions. We are determined to do more for carers, so we are making special provision for those getting invalid care allowance to ensure that they can still qualify for IB. We are also protecting people who have been off IB for a short spell and have not had a chance to rebuild their national insurance contributions, to ensure that they do not lose out.
  I want to say a word about the new support that we are providing for severely disabled young people and children. Clause 56 applies, for the first time, the higher rate mobility payment of disability living allowance to severely disabled children aged three and four. That reform is worth more than £35 a week extra in new support for disabled people, and gives children and their families access to the Motability scheme.
  We also want to provide better help for young people disabled early in life. Clause 53 gives young disabled people who claim before they are 20 a new entitlement to IB without requiring them to meet the usual contribution conditions, which is worth up to £25.60 a week extra and provides real help for those young disabled people who need it most.
  One of the strongest arguments that several disability organisations made was that it would be wrong to penalise someone who is young, who is disabled, and who has stayed on after school to go into higher education or training. I accept that, so we shall table a Government amendment to raise the age limit for claiming IB for young disabled people who begin training or higher education before they are 20 to the age of 25.
  All those reforms focus help on those who need it most—disabled young people unable to work and severely disabled young children.
  Ms Walley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is concern that, currently, people undergoing medical examinations are not gaining entitlement to the benefit? When he reviews the medical examinations, will he consider how to ensure that there can be public trust in the new system that he sets up? A survey undertaken by the Stoke-on-Trent citizens advice bureau found that about 68 per cent. of people who had been refused incapacity benefit in the first instance were awarded benefit later. Will my right hon. Friend consider how trust might be re-established, given the contracting out of the medical examinations?
  Mr. Darling: I entirely take my hon. Friend's point. I attach considerable importance not only to ensuring that the medical test is fair and seen to be fair, but to ensuring that we get benefits right first time. My hon. Friend mentioned a very bad feature of the social security system, which has been growing over the years: far too many awards are overturned on appeal because they were not right first time. Some of the changes that we have made will allow officials to put things right before they have to go through the appeal procedure. That relates to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and

  225
  Chryston made. In the past, a wrong decision had to be appealed, which sometimes took months. I am very conscious of that.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the length of time between an interview when benefits have been awarded through the gateway and a recall interview? I see nothing in the Bill determining that.
  Mr. Darling: That is not in the Bill, but regulations will be made specifying the trigger points for second interviews. It may help the House if I give an idea of the Government's thinking—as yet not finalised—on that. In any event, people should be seen after five years if they have not been in before. However, I shall give some examples. A person might be called for interview at the end of caring responsibilities; when they leave or take up part-time work; when they leave or start education or training; when we receive results of the new personal capability assessment, showing that the person is able to work; or when the youngest child of a lone parent enters primary or secondary school. At such a milestone event we could reasonably say to people, "Something has changed; come in and see what the options are."
  I emphasise again that people who have been through the new deal, seeing a personal adviser, will know from experience that they are getting a qualitatively different service when they go in. The Department will be focused on how it can help people.
  We are making regulations, and there will be ample time to discuss the matter in Committee—I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South?East (Dr. Iddon) has aspirations to serve on it.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: This is the last time—I promise.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the amount of time that a person spends on benefit before they are likely to be seen or interviewed. Has he also considered, and will he be giving targets for, or indications of, the length of time between when a person is called for interview and when they are seen or expected to be seen?
  Mr. Darling: The normal expectation is that, unless there is good cause of the type that I mentioned earlier, a person will come in for an initial interview within, let us say, three to four days of applying for benefit. Subsequent interviews will take place at milestones such as those that I have described. Regulations will be published and guidance issued to staff on when interviews should take place—how much notice people should get.
  I emphasise to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) that the Government want to ensure that, throughout the process, everyone's mind is focused on work, not benefit, and also focused on what help, and what additional training and skills, they might be able to get. The initial interview is therefore crucial, but the Bill makes provision for subsequent interviews to ensure that we do not prolong
  226
  the present situation, where someone can be left on benefits, in effect, for a lifetime, and nothing is done to help them. It is not good for them or for anyone else.
  I shall now discuss bereavement benefits. I repeat that none of the changes will affect existing widows—widows over pension age—or war pensioners, but the current system needs reform. It is out of date. If we started afresh, we would not reinvent the present system. When widow's benefit was introduced more than 50 years ago, most women—certainly after marriage—did not work, whereas today seven out of 10 married women work, almost as many as the eight out of 10 married men who work.
  Audrey Wise: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Darling: I will give way when I have finished this passage.
  The system helps many women on good incomes who have no children to care for, yet it does nothing for bereaved husbands struggling to bring up children. The current system is deficient in that it spends most on those who need it least. Forty per cent. of women getting that benefit are in the top half of the income bracket. Moreover, 75 per cent. of the money that we spend goes to women without dependent children, whereas 35,000 widows see nothing at all because their widow's benefit is deducted pound for pound if they happen to be on income support.
  Audrey Wise: My right hon. Friend says that a great many women work, but he does not seem to take account of the fact that they are still largely congregated at the lower end of the wages table and that many of them work part time rather than full-time, or are on temporary work or in other disadvantaged jobs. Will he look at that again? One job does not simply equal another.
  Mr. Darling: We have introduced the working families tax credit, underpinned by the minimum wage, precisely to tackle that problem, which my hon. Friend rightly raised for years while the Tories were in power—and nothing happened.
  The Government's strategy has to be looked at right across the board. We are trying to deal with the problems of low pay and, in some cases, exploitation, particularly of women who work for ridiculously low sums. We are also ensuring that we have fairer benefit and bereavement systems, which is one reason why we want bereaved husbands and their children to be treated on the same basis as widows, through a weekly non-means-tested benefit. That will help low-paid people more than it will help others, because we believe that the current system does not provide enough help with immediate costs, unpaid bills or funeral expenses. We are doubling the lump sum payable on death to £2,000.
  We are also providing transitional help to those without children in the period immediately following bereavement. The Bill provides for non-means-tested help for widows and widowers without children for six months following bereavement and for older widows over 55 without dependent children, without income and without the prospect of work. We want to ensure that they are no worse off from these changes by providing extra help through income support.

  227
  Finally in that regard, we are also ensuring that the system does more to help the poorest widows and widowers and their children who, until now, have lost their benefit pound for pound. They will be able to get additional help worth an extra £10 a week. In respect of disability benefits and widow's benefit, our objective is to focus help where it is needed most.
  These reforms look to the long term and to the needs that we know that we will face in the future; because we are looking to the long term, we are reforming the pensions system. In December, I published proposals for far-reaching reform of the pensions system, and the Bill is the first stage of our reforms. A large part of the Bill—clauses 15 to 43—delivers on our commitment to enable pension sharing on divorce. For the first time, pension rights can be shared like other assets at the time of divorce, which will provide greater flexibility and choice for divorcing couples and for the courts.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: That change is extremely welcome, but I understand that the Government intend that provision to apply only to people who have not commenced divorce proceedings when the Bill becomes law. Surely it would be more logical, and no more retrospective, to allow the provision to apply to people who have not reached the decree absolute stage. Such people would still be married, after all.
  Mr. Darling: The Bill will affect only cases initiated after it comes into force. Any degree of retrospection causes immense difficulties. [HON. MEMBERS: "The CSA."] My hon. Friends mutter about the Child Support Agency; it provides an example of what happens when one revisits matters that were otherwise settled. I cannot help my hon. Friend on that issue; the provision will not be retrospective.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the position of professional couples with no dependants, especially those couples where the lady might be the major breadwinner? The measure might cause problems on divorce that otherwise would not have arisen. Has he considered the implications of that?
  Mr. Darling: It will be up to the courts to decide how the assets are divided, if the divorcing couple cannot decide, and the measure provides an option that is not otherwise available. It is more common to find that the man works and has a substantial pension, which he gets to keep. That is unfair to the woman, who may have contributed, if not in cash then by helping the man to build up his pension rights. The measure will give additional options, but it will be up to the court to decide what is equitable.
  Clauses 1 to 7 also provide a framework for the new stakeholder pension schemes, which are central to our objective of ensuring that those who can save for their pension do so. I believe that everyone who can save has a responsibility to do so, but not everyone has that opportunity. For the third of employees who do not have the option of joining an occupational scheme at the
  228
  moment, a personal pension scheme is the only option, but such schemes are not suitable for many people, especially low earners or contract workers.
  Mr. Steve Webb rose—
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
  Mr. John Greenway rose—
  Mr. Darling: I will start—
  Mr. Corbyn: There is one behind you.
  Mr. Darling: I will start with the Liberals and then look behind me.
  Mr. Webb: Would the Secretary of State feel that his reforms had failed if someone on a modest income—say £10,000 a year—who had taken out a stakeholder pension found that he was still dependent on income support a few years after retirement?
  Mr. Darling: Our objective is for everybody who works during a normal lifetime to retire with sufficient income above income support. The hon. Gentleman was clearly not referring to someone who had earned £10,000 for a short period—and it is unlikely that such a person would ever have considered a personal private pension, unless badly advised—but the objective is for people who have worked throughout their lives for £10,000 a year to retire with an income above income support, either through the state second pension or through an occupational or a stakeholder pension. The objective under those options is for people to retire with an income above income support, but they will have to take advice on whether or not to go in for a stakeholder pension. I have always been clear on that point.
  Mr. Corbyn: The Secretary of State will be aware of the pamphlet produced last year by Barbara Castle and Peter Townsend on the future of the state earnings-related pension scheme. He will also be aware that his Bill, in effect, ends SERPS. Is he not concerned that the Bill is creating a big market for private pensions, when we could be refunding the SERPS scheme to ensure that that good system, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government, is allowed to continue?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend has raised an important and interesting point, with which I want to deal. Our proposals replace SERPS with the new state second pension. SERPS is earnings related, so it does not do much for poorer pensioners. When I considered pension reform, I of course looked at SERPS and whether or not we should reinstate it, in whole or in part. A lot has happened over the past 25 years. There are many more people in occupational schemes—they have made their own pension provision—than was the case, or than was even anticipated, in the 1970s, but the group that is losing out particularly badly is the low-paid.
  I urge my hon. Friend, if he has not already done so, to look at the Green Paper that we published last December and, in particular, the table about half way through that document showing how we are giving

  229
  significant help to people earning £9,000 a year or below. The system now assumes that people are earning £9,000, whether they are or not, and a considerable amount of pension can be accrued with such an income. That will benefit low-paid people in a way that SERPS could not, because it was not designed to do that.
  Over the past 25 years, and gradually during the century, more people have made funded provision for themselves. Generally, they will be better off than if they had relied purely on the state. My approach to introducing pension reform was to work within the present system, but to tackle the deficiencies. One of the main deficiencies was that we were not helping people on lower incomes.
  Mr. Greenway: I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There are many people who have taken out personal pensions for whom stakeholder pensions, particularly if such pensions are introduced by their employers, will be attractive. Will he reconsider the illogicality of not allowing people to invest in both? Many personal pension policyholders will lose out badly if they are advised to come out of such a scheme and go into a stakeholder pension.
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has a lot of experience in the industry, and I understand the point that he makes, but there are a lot of people for whom stakeholder pensions might be a better option than personal private pensions. A lot of people who were put into personal private pensions should never have gone into them in the first place.
  A number of people have been critical in the pensions press of what might happen to personal private pensions, but most of them neglect to say that they make a handsome living out of selling such pensions. I have always made it clear that personal private pensions are a good option for some people, particularly the better-paid and people who change jobs, but I make no apology for saying that there are people in the middle and lower ranges who ought not to be in such schemes.
  Stakeholder pensions are essentially aimed at that market and it is for the Government to ensure that people have options. We must not conduct policy as the previous Government did: the only option for people not in occupational pension schemes was to go into a personal private pension scheme. That was not right, which is why we are legislating for the new stakeholder pension scheme. It will give people without a second funded pension a better opportunity to save.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Darling: I am sorry, but, having spoken for 50 minutes, I must draw my remarks to a conclusion. I gave way to my hon. Friend earlier.
  The Bill provides for stakeholder pension schemes to be run in ways that put members' rights and interests first. We shall require all stakeholder pension schemes to meet specified standards. They will be cheaper, with lower charges, and more flexible. For example, if someone takes a break from work to bring up children, we want to ensure that charges will not eat up all his or her savings. We also want to ensure that the schemes are simpler and more transparent.
  230
  The stakeholder provision in the Bill is only part of our pension reforms. We are consulting until the end of March on our new state second pension, to which I referred earlier. We announced earlier this month that we want to build on the stakeholder pension scheme proposals by making the rules on pension investments more flexible.
  Our objective, through structural reform of the pensions system and other measures, is to ensure that more people take out a funded second pension. That will ensure that people get a better pension, a better retirement, and a better future. The Bill plans for the long term. It is designed to deliver a welfare state equipped to meet the needs of the next 50 years.
  The Tory amendment, which Madam Speaker was kind enough to select, is a complete dog's breakfast. It is bereft of ideas and complacent, and it ignores the mounting problems that the previous Government neglected for 18 years. It is therefore also extremely costly. We have already cut the bills of social and economic failure by tackling the causes of poverty and social exclusion. We are making work pay with the working families tax credit and the first ever national minimum wage.
  The Liberal Democrat amendment has been written in two halves—perhaps by two of the contenders in the leadership campaign. The first half is extremely sensible and welcomes what the Government are doing; the second was clearly written by somebody who takes a different tack in trying to garner support. A second pence on income tax will be needed to pay for some of the proposals.
  Our objective is to provide security for today's poorest pensioners through the new minimum income guarantee. We shall spend £1 billion more on disability benefits this Parliament; we are helping 6.5 million families with the biggest ever rise in child benefit; and we are building an affordable, manageable and effective welfare state, based on our principle of providing work for those who can, and security for those who cannot.
  These proposals are radical, essential, workable and right. I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. lain Duncan Smith: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading because the complex and unrelated nature of some of the issues covered, which themselves should be subject to separate legislation, will have the effect of complicating pension provision, increasing the disincentive to save, fostering dependency particularly for the self-employed, widows and disabled people, and although, through the work-focused gateway, the Government seeks to make benefit conditional, the necessary conditions for success are missing since the Bill does nothing to increase job creation; and regrets the missed opportunity for lasting reform of social security and pensions."
  Today's long-awaited welfare Bill should be measured against the Government's own targets. The Secretary of State is fond of quoting the Prime Minister selectively, but let us complete the quotations. On 7 May 1997, the Prime Minister clearly said:
  "I have asked Ministers at the Department of Social Security to look in detail at how we can make far reaching reforms that tackle insecurity and property as well as reducing the social security bills".
  It is important to get that quotation right, because that is how we judge the Government. According to their figures, and taking account of the working families tax credit, social security spending will increase by some £37 billion.

  231
  Many hon. Members may be forgiven for thinking that this is a case of déjà vu, because the Government have already launched most of the proposals. They have a habit of launching, relaunching, re-relaunching and re-re-relaunching items to different sections of the media.
  First, however, I want to discuss how the Bill is presented. In a sense, the Government are abusing Parliament. Given that the Bill contains 75 clauses, 10 schedules and runs to 109 pages, it could have been divided into two separate pieces of legislation—some might argue even three or four. The Secretary of State knows that. For example, the provision on pension splitting on divorce is complex and clearly should have formed a separate Bill. Both sides of the House are in favour of the measure, but serious issues need to be discussed, which should be done separately.
  The other pensions sector, the stakeholder pension schemes, could also have been subject to separate legislation. After all, the Government have not yet finished their consultation process, and here we are legislating in detail. Just by looking through the Bill we can see the vast raft of Henry VIII clauses. The Bill has been put together quickly in the absence of consideration of genuine comment from many people outside.
  Why cannot the Government wait until the consultation process is over, at least before launching the stakeholder legislation? They could easily have presented a separate Bill. Perhaps the Government think that the consultation process is not important, but it was they who said that it was in the first place. Furthermore, representative groups say that much of what they have said has been ignored and they are concerned about the nature of the consultation process.
  The Bill has been rammed together with clauses that should not all be in the same legislation. As a result, it will not get the scrutiny that it should receive, nor will the Government be able to take account of some of the major concerns. As I said earlier, the provision on pension splitting should have formed a separate Bill. We agreed that it required close scrutiny and said that there was no ideological difference between us on the concept of the legislation or the idea that it would impart fairness to those who feel that the current system treats them unfairly.
  There are some complex issues that require a lot of consideration. Pension splitting will be successful only so long as the benefits outweigh the difficulties. Clearly, it was not embarked on previously because of its complexity. We intend to approach this provision constructively, and I hope that the Government will do likewise. I hope that, if they find that there are major problems, they will acknowledge them during our scrutiny of the Bill.
  Ms Gisela Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that pension splitting on divorce was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Select Committee, which took extensive evidence? I should have thought that he would be satisfied with that.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I do not know whether the hon. Lady has been in the House long enough to know that nobody should be satisfied simply because somebody else has scrutinised something. The Bill must go through a
  232
  Standing Committee. I do not know whether the hon. Lady will be on that Standing Committee, but, if she is and intends to keep silent throughout, she will do her constituents no service whatever. As she knows, the Select Committee on Social Security has made a number of recommendations, some of which have not been accepted by the Government. Perhaps she will advance those arguments to the Government.
  The Secretary of State said that one of the main parts of the Bill was the gateway. A number of different clauses fall under that heading, so I shall deal with those in turn. The first is the provision for benefits for widows and widowers. The line that runs through much of the Bill—I have raised it before and the Secretary of State knows that I will raise it again—is the continued erosion of the contributory principle and the increasing dependency on the means test, which have become part of the Government's overall thrust. As I have always said, that will lead to an attack on the incentive to work and particularly to save. For example, clause 45 says that the new bereavement benefit will be cut off for those without dependent children after 26 weeks, whereas the current entitlement to widow's benefit is up to retirement age.
  Yet again, the Government have ignored many widows' concerns. Under existing calculations, some 250,000 women who are likely to receive the benefit will subsequently lose under the scheme. The National Institution of Widows said that it
  "would like to see the state contributory principle upheld for future widows"
  and that it would oppose pushing those widows on to means-tested benefit. Cruse Bereavement Care said:
  "These benefit proposals would as with all means tested benefits act as a disincentive to saving and encourage people to spend any life assurance benefit or savings they may have made."
  Most intriguingly, those changes force those who would normally be entitled to widow's benefit on to income-based dependency.
  I received a letter—completely out of the blue—from somebody who lives abroad but has made national insurance contributions for the whole of his working life. It is relevant to read part of the letter. He says:
  "I am 65 years of age and a state pensioner; my wife is 50 years of age. I have made contributions for some 44 years to ensure a state pension and a widows pension. Some 20 years' contributions were on a 'voluntary basis' as I worked abroad … I paid voluntary contributions to ensure state and widows pension in preference to a private pension scheme, now I learn that the Government is going to renege on their pensions 'contract' with my wife and I."
  He says that he feels that he and his wife are abused.
  Whether the Government like it or not, that individual highlights yet another example of the strong psychological connection that the public make with the contributory principle. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has made that point time and again. In that individual's case which I have just cited, there is also a legitimate connection, because he paid voluntary contributions. [Interruption.] I love the way in which Labour Members argue that the Conservative Government changed the system. I thought that the Government have said that we got everything wrong when we were in government, instead of which they now say that they want to continue aspects of our policy. It is quite remarkable. I do not know why Labour Members wanted a change of Government: perhaps, rather like the Liberal Democrats, they should have preferred to be on a Cabinet Committee and get on with it.

  233
  The Government maintain that there will be serious savings, but that there will be short-term costs of about £140 million. They say that the costs will be offset by the savings. They are wrong, because I do not believe that that will happen. If, through the disincentives, more people are forced on to means-tested benefits, the cost of such benefits will spiral, which will more than obliterate any savings that the Government think they will make. They make the most absurd calculations of the number of people who may end up on means-tested benefit.
  A similar theme emerges when we consider the changes for those eligible for incapacity benefit. Those changes will discourage people from saving. For the first time, people with disabilities on incapacity benefit will be means-tested. The Disability Benefits Consortium said:
  "Making disabled people rely on means-tested benefits is not the way to promote a sense of independence, nor of preventing poverty."
  Clause 51 will encourage people to leave work earlier than they would have done. If they work part-time, they are likely to fall below the national insurance contributions threshold, so they will not qualify for incapacity benefit. That is a worry for them. The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation is particularly concerned that people whose health is deteriorating—particularly in the latter years of their working lives—will be driven to take such action, and to take the view that it is not worth their continuing for the two-year requirement.
  The terms of clause 52 are also perverse, and they are not first about means-testing. Due to the introduction of the taper, those who have saved for private health provision and have made an effort so that they are not completely reliant on the health service will be driven back to the NHS, thereby increasing the burden on the health service. I thought that the Government wanted people to save, but that is a disincentive to save.
  Age Concern said:
  "There is a danger that by reducing incapacity benefit for those people with a certain level of private pension, and focusing state help only on the poorest through means tested benefits, people will actually be deterred from saving."
  Dr. George Turner: The hon. Gentleman attacks the Government's proposals on means-testing. Is he committing his party to removing that arrangement if it ever gets the opportunity? If he is attacking means-testing, how is that consistent with his other attack on Labour for being profligate in government?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State said that it is a question of balance. I think that the Government have got the balance wrong. In answer to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Unlike the Secretary of State, I shall attempt to answer questions. The hon. Gentleman asked what we would do in government. If he is making up his mind about whether to vote Conservative or Labour at the next election, he will have to wait to find out. We will tell him clearly what we will do, and he can make his own decision. Most of these provisions will get through, but I believe that they will have a detrimental effect, so we shall have to make what changes are necessary to ensure that people do not suffer more than they have to.
  Let us consider the gateway interviews, and the requirement for certain categories of benefit recipients to be available for interview. The Government have
  234
  launched this policy six or seven times, and it was the only element of the Bill used in the attack on the "something for nothing" culture in the Daily Mail. I was intrigued that the Secretary of State showed no trace of irony while he announced that he was planning to extend the concept of the jobseeker's allowance, which Labour Members so heavily attacked when in opposition. His hon. Friend the Under?Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), said during the debates in 1995:
  "There is an authoritarian behavioural requirement of jobseekers".—[Official Report, 10 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 109.]
  The hon. Lady chirrups, but does she think that she is an authoritarian figure now, because that is the logic of extending the concept?
  The Government Front-Bench team, who sit there now, trooped through the Lobby and voted against the jobseeker's allowance, which they now laud as the key to their changes. That is absurd. However, my colleagues and I are always prepared to welcome what appears to be a sinner who repenteth. Like many people who first saw the proposals in the Green Paper, we wondered how tough the Government were and whether they would see this through properly.
  The Bill confirms that the Government think that it is good to talk, but where is the action? Of course, those who receive benefit have obligations, and if they are able to work, they should seek work. The Government should take the necessary measures to assist them. However, the Government have other obligations that they do not seem keen to ante up to. Most importantly, they must ensure that the cost of employing people falls rather than rises, and that costs on business are kept low, otherwise the necessary jobs will not be created and bringing people in for interview will achieve nothing but frustration and extra costs.
  This is a Government whose right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. The Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry are busy imposing extra burdens on industry. In a previous speech, I estimated that they have risen by approximately £40 billion since the Government came into office. On top of that, the Department of Social Security, through devices such as the working families tax credit, will increase spending on social security by some £37 billion over the next three years. Like everything else, that will bear directly on individuals through their tax burden, and ultimately make employing them even more expensive.
  The Government also started the new deal for lone parents, which will cost £200 million over this Parliament. Frankly, it has failed. Approximately 6 per cent. of lone parents take work, and a very high proportion of them fall out of work within six months. I notice that the Government now refuse to publish the figures for the number of lone parents falling out of work because they are so bad. The Government should cancel the programme, but they continue with it.
  While continuing with that programme, they talk about obligating lone parents to come in for an interview. Surely they should accept the fact that the original programme has failed. They should save the extra money that they were to spend on that programme, and put it into the gateway—the great idea lauded by the Secretary of State. The Government's stated policy is to do one thing, but they intend to do another. It is absurd.

  235
  The Government seem unsure about what they intend to achieve. At no point have we had any targets for savings to be made through welfare to work or the gateway. Bearing in mind the fact that there are about 1 million lone parents on income support, how many new jobs does the Secretary of State think will be created? I shall give way to the Secretary of State if he wants to intervene on that point, but it appears that he does not.
  The Government have yet to say how they will spend the money required to interview all those who are eligible. The gateway may become a bottleneck. We see the spending, but we do not see the saving. The Secretary of State has an opportunity to clarify the situation. There will be up-front costs to interview all those people to whom he referred—he said that will happen within three to four days, which is quite a commitment—so he must spend the money required to ensure that they can all be interviewed in that time. The cost will be considerable.
  On the basis of what we have learnt from the lone-parent interviews under the new deal, the costs just for lone parents could rise to £100 million. I assume that the Government will ante up to that. I saw the Secretary of State nodding, so I assume that that is the case. [Interruption.] He is now shaking his head, because he realises what the cost will be, but he was nodding when I referred to his commitment.
  In the Bill, the Government start to wobble. The gateway is interesting, because the Government use fairly tough language, which worries a number of Labour Members. Clause 47(6) is interesting, however, because it leaves local authorities and even individuals providing services with wide discretionary powers to decide whether a person need not attend the interview.
  I am aware of the guidelines that have been published. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) give guidance—rather simple guidance—on who should and should not be involved. Paragraph (a), to which the Secretary of State referred, allows someone to disapply the requirement. The example involving the exemption of pensioners was so specific that we have been led to believe that there is some other reason why the Government did not include it in the Bill. Why does the Secretary of State not spend a bit more time working that out? Why does he not specify exactly who should be exempted? If he does not, pensioners will begin to worry about whether they are included—a question that the Secretary of State has left to the discretion of local authorities and individual agencies.
  Paragraph (b) allows for the waiving of the regulations for the terminally ill and those who have already attended interviews. That is fraught with complications; but, in my view, paragraph (c) creates the biggest problem of all, because it gives the widest scope for the deferring of an interview. All Labour Members would do well to read it. The example given is likely to affect many people, both those who are genuinely sick and those who may seek to use it as an excuse.
  Many people with disabilities are taking serious medication, and would, it seems, qualify almost perpetually. Such people will be left wondering, because the Bill does not make it clear whether they will be called for an interview or the requirement will be waived. The situation will be patchy: the law will be applied differently in different areas, because there will be different views
  236
  about which group should be called in. There really is a problem for the Secretary of State. The vagueness of the drafting will lead to further difficulties, and the Secretary of State has left himself open to the requirement for sweeping legislation later. The genuinely ill will worry, and others who learn about the system may say, "Well, there is a way around this." They may observe the way in which others are treated, decide to behave accordingly and make their excuses.
  There is, however, another problem. Officials will be under pressure, and will not have the appropriate resources. The Secretary of State has not committed himself to spending the necessary money: he said that he was not prepared to spend it if it was as much as I suggested. Let us therefore assume—for it is just about possible: Governments have found themselves in difficulties before—that, in the absence of the appropriate resources, officials will be under pressure. Staffing numbers alone will be a problem, but the officials will be under further pressure because, according to the Secretary of State, people will have to be interviewed within three to four days.
  Officials will be under pressure to ensure that people are interviewed, and they will have to deal with a backlog. Of course they will be tempted to look at the categories in the guidelines and say, "I can get rid of a few of these people." That is a huge hole in the legislation; the Secretary of State knows that, and I wonder why he has left it there.
  Moreover, given that the Secretary of State has specified three to four days for those categories—the sick, the disabled and pensioners—he expects those who must make the decision to do so in that time. That will lead to yet more complications. Officials will be under further pressure, and the fact that the guidelines criss-cross will cause extra difficulties.
  The more we look at the proposals, the more we see classic new Labour. It is window dressing for the sake of good headlines; behind it, all is confusion and extra cost with no savings at the end.
  The Secretary of State spent some time talking about pensions. The long-awaited reform will create even more problems than it seeks to solve. The Government's attack on pensioners—their abolition of advance corporation tax dividend credit, which meant taxing pensioners £5 billion a year—has created the worst environment for many years. There has been the attack on pensioners, and there have been attacks on savings: there has been a series of stealth taxes.
  Under the present Government, someone aged 35 with a starting salary of £10,000, rising to £32,000 over 30 years—that allows for about a 4 per cent. increase per annum—will find that his income on retirement is reduced by between 11 and 15 per cent., as a direct result of the Government's new tax. Instead of retiring on a pension of some £14,700, that person will retire on, at best, a pension of £12,500. Those figures are from the National Association of Pension Funds, and they provide a startling illustration of the Government's failure and the attack that they have made on pensioners and savings. This is a classic example of the way in which the Government have failed pensioners.
  What have the Government done in the Bill to put the position right? In fact, they have made the position worse. Occupational pension schemes are already in difficulty as

  237
  a result of the Government's changes, and those difficulties will now increase. Clause 1 makes it clear that stakeholder pensions will be alternatives to occupational and personal pension schemes: people will have to choose between them. No one can have an occupational or personal pension, and also be a stakeholder. Clause 3(7) adds to the administrative nightmare: it will force companies to set up two separate arrangements, one for new entrants to stakeholder schemes and the other for existing occupational pensioners. There will be extra costs and extra complications.
  Clause 1—along with the abolition of ACT dividend credit, and the change in national insurance rebates for contracted-out money purchase schemes, contracted-out salary-related schemes and personal pensions—will put huge pressure on employers to close their company schemes. Eventually, they will simply offer stakeholder schemes, which could ultimately lead to smaller retirement pensions for many people.
  The Government are on record as saying, in their Green Paper,
  "Occupational pension schemes are the great welfare success story of this country."
  The Green Paper—published by the Secretary of State—continues:
  "They are provided voluntarily by employers and many millions of people benefit from them now and will continue to benefit."
  How hollow those words are. As ever, rhetoric and reality are detached, and the public out there who are trying to save will suffer. This is a badge of shame that the Government will wear until the next general election.
  No new occupational scheme has been set up since the Government were elected. Instead, schemes are closing.
  Ms Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No; I have already given way to the hon. Lady.
  Not content with destroying occupational pensions, the Government now seem happy to dip into what is left. Let me refer to a little article in the Daily Mail—a paper that the Government now adore, because they like to be published in it. Indeed, the Secretary of State's right hon. Friend the Prime Minister seems to write for it exclusively. According to the article,
  "The state has made a £17 million profit after a computer glitch led to pensioners being short-changed.
  The £20 million windfall came about after more than £2 billion which should have been paid out in cash rebates to private pension holders was banked instead. The Government plans to set aside only £3 million to compensate the victims, with the rest going to the Treasury."
  That is pretty typical: it is what we have come to expect from the Government. The Government have sticky fingers. Not only are they busy crushing occupational pensions, and creating a nightmare for those who must choose with no way of affording the proper advice; as ever, they are content to fiddle extra money for the Treasury that was not theirs to start with.
  Ms Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I have done so already.
  238
  Finally, no mention is made of lifelong individual savings accounts. They are on the loose, cutting across stakeholders and complicating what was meant to be simple. There is no extra promise for advice about stakeholder pensions, enabling people to decide whether to opt for an occupational scheme or to take out a LISA. That will mean more cost, and more confusion.
  Ms Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Yes, I will.
  Ms Stuart: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the creation of new occupational pension schemes giving defined benefits. I understand that, apart from the restructuring of companies, nothing like that was done during 18 years of Tory government.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: That is interesting. The hon. Lady has gone and put her foot in her mouth. She must have been eating too many genetically modified foods. In fact, her party's Government made things so bad for occupational pensions that those schemes are now closing. [Interruption.] The point stands. No new schemes have been opened under the present Government—and new schemes were opened under the last Government. [Interruption.] My point is well made. The hon. Lady is wrong. This Government set about breaking down occupational schemes. The Secretary of State sits there smiling. [Interruption.] The only thing that has been lost is the ability of the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) to tell pensioners in her constituency that the Government have done anything to support pensioners. The Government have smashed occupational pension schemes and made a complex nightmare of the stakeholder scheme. Pensioners are the ones who will suffer for it. The hon. Lady should tell her pensioners—who, in the example that I gave, would lose more than £2,000—that they are better off under this Government. The fact of life is that they are not.
  The Government have made a huge mess of all of it. The Treasury's LISAs, which will affect all aspects of the stakeholder scheme, were meant to help simplify pensions.
  Mr. Howard Flight: Does my hon. Friend know where the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) possibly could have found the bogus data that she quoted? Towards the end of the previous Government's tenure, I personally established an occupational scheme. I know of many other similar schemes.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is quite right. The point that I was trying to make was that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) was wrong—[Interruption.] I said that she was wrong. I shall accept an apology from her, because she was wrong. She sits there hoping for a job, taking briefs from those on the Treasury Bench, but she should be very careful that she gets it right. I dare say that she will eventually apologise.
  The point that I was making—it is most important—is that LISAs have created only more confusion. The Chancellor's original idea for stakeholder pensions was that they should be simple, and therefore cheap and easy

  239
  to understand. Instead, we have seen many variations on the stakeholder scheme—the last of which is the LISA, for which the Treasury seems to be responsible.
  I ask the Secretary of State why the Bill does not deal with the LISA or any of its requirements? Why is the LISA not relevant to this Bill? We have no idea how the Government will control LISAs. We have an idea of the controls that they will impose on stakeholder pensions, but no idea about LISA controls. The final result of all the confusion and chaos that the Government are causing in the pension industry could be an accusation of mis-selling. The sad part about it is that that mis-selling will have to be dealt with by another Government, after that lot on the Labour Benches have been thrown out of office.
  Mr. John Greenway: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the real problem confronting the industry and those who give advice. Even in two years, people who choose a stakeholder pension will have to buy an annuity. If people choose a LISA instead, they will be able each year to take cash from it. Which scheme will be better in the long term? Who will be responsible for giving that advice?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend, who knows something about the subject, has put his finger on the point. The Government are in a state of confusion. The two sides of the Government do not talk to each other, and the situation is a mess. Far from simplifying pension provision, they have made it much more complicated and succeeded in inflicting a final body-blow to occupational pension schemes.
  A scheme that Ministers said was a great success story is likely now to be heading into the history books as something that people used to be part of, once upon a time. If we add to that attack the Government's annual £5 billion tax on general pension funds and a rising means test, in the minimum income for pensioners, we realise that Ministers have managed to do the double—providing disincentives from both ends for pensioners, who will be squeezed in the middle.
  Ministers said that they would simplify pensions, but have made them more complex. They said that, ultimately, pensions would be cheaper; now, pensions will be more expensive. They said that they would support occupational pension schemes, but are now killing them off.
  In this Bill—as with so much else that the Government do, with their huge majority—the Government seem petrified by the prospect of dissent and obsessed with control. We have seen such behaviour from the Home Secretary this week—but the House is used to it, as we see it every week. Ministers put together such legislation and ram it through the House, half-finished and without a variation.
  A year ago, I explained the criteria for successful reform: it must first strengthen the family; it must strengthen personal responsibility and break the dependency culture; it must strengthen alternative welfare provision; and it must protect those who are in genuine need. On all four counts, the Bill fails.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: If Conservative Members are moving away from means-testing, and if we
  240
  are not prepared to accept the huge taxation and public spending increases necessitated by implementation of the ideas of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), is there another way—perhaps a third way—of dealing with the matter, by requiring families, and encouraging them in the tax system, to take up more of the strain of looking after dependent children, the elderly and the disabled? Is a third way available to us?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend, too, has put his finger on it. There is only one way of addressing the issue—by involving people and by incentivising, not disincentivising them, to take responsibility for their lives. The Government are doing the exact opposite. Although they talk about incentives, all their actions—from their rhetoric, which sounds big, to their delivery, in the Bill—deliver one disincentive after another to saving or to going back into work. The Bill exemplifies the Government's approach to the issue.
  The Bill will damage savings, provide disincentives for those returning to work, create chaos and confusion in the pension market and increase social security costs, without saving money at the other end. It is a bad Bill from a bad Government, and it is our pleasurable duty to oppose it today.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I remind the House that Back-Bench speeches will be limited to 10 minutes.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Tom Levitt: I am a trustee of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, and shall be talking today about issues affecting the disabled. The post is unremunerated. I do not have to declare it, but wanted to make a clean breast before beginning.
  The Bill will have a considerable positive impact on the lives of very many disabled people across the country. We should, however, examine carefully the context in which it will operate. I believe that the Bill will enable us to implement long overdue reform, particularly of the disability benefit system, so that it is better focused, more efficient and in tune with the parallel initiatives that will be taken by other Departments.
  Since creation of the benefits system 50 years ago—when the social environment was completely different—so much baggage has been left behind, which we have inherited, that it is essential that we carefully study the current system if we are to ensure fairness for all concerned. The fact is that, 50 years ago, disabled people were primarily those who had been wounded in the war. They were young people who, because of their acquired disability, were looking forward to half a century of economic inactivity. Although they believed that the nation had a duty conscientiously to look after them, they did not have the expectation of rights and emancipation that the disabled now have the right to expect. In the years that followed, although there was fuller and more stable employment, there was not assistance for those in employment, as there is now and will be in future.
  As the Secretary of State said, current incapacity benefit figures show that about one quarter of British men aged 60 are not capable of work because of incapacity. However, I do not believe that that figure can be right, especially as it is larger than the corresponding number

  241
  of 60-year-old men who were not able to work 50 years ago. I do not believe that the health of the nation has become so much worse in that sense in the past 50 years.
  We had an entirely different perception of disabled people 50 years ago. We were happy to put away into asylums people with mental incapacity or a learning disability, and to leave them for year after year. It was a matter of "out of sight, out of mind". Deaf people were locked up in those same institutions, because of a failure to understand what disability is all about. The Sexual Offences Act 1956 refers to people with mental incapacity as "defectives". That shows the attitude to disabled people that existed among our legislators. I hope that, when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary looks at that Act in his review of sexual offences, the word "defectives" will be removed from the legal vocabulary.
  We have to ask what the disability benefits system is for, how it is achieving its aim and whether it can be improved. For example, why has the system denied benefits to children under five, depriving their families of compensation for the extra costs of the children's disability? The Bill addresses that, making funds available to cover three and four-year-olds with disabilities. That non-means-tested benefit will be tax free and worth £1,800 a year to the families of the 8,000 children who will be covered.
  Why are 70 per cent. of those in receipt of severe disablement allowance also entitled to income support? That suggests that the SDA is not meeting the needs of those with disabilities and is not providing them with an incentive to get out of the benefit trap.
  The incapacity benefit system is governed largely by fear. If someone who has been on incapacity benefit for some time knows that they are getting better, there is a disincentive to admit it. Anyone who is long-term sick and starts to get better knows that there will be an economic penalty and they will get no extra assistance to get into work. If they have given up on work or the system has given up on helping them, they get no help in the first place.
  There is thus a real incentive for people to hide their developing abilities as they grow out of chronic sickness. The proposal to bring in a new 12-month linking rule for incapacity benefit will be a great relief for such people, allowing them at least to try the world of work, having previously felt alienated from it.
  One of the most exciting aspects of the Bill is that it encompasses the idea of joined-up government. The Government acknowledge that disabled people have a right to quality information about the benefits and services available to them and to assistance and training in seeking work when appropriate. They also have a right to special help, after the onset of disability or age-related impairment, to stay in work when possible. Most of all, underlying the Bill is a commitment to the independence and dignity that disabled people need and should be encouraged to keep.
  We have to ask why the Department of Social Security and the Employment Service are each given responsibilities for certain aspects of the system, but are refused a mechanism to work together to achieve their common and complementary aims. We cannot defend one Department not knowing what the other is doing when they are working in complementary fields. We cannot defend one officer passing the buck to another
  242
  Department and officers at the sharp end of the benefits services giving confusing or incomplete advice. It is not surprising that the advice is often confusing and incomplete and people end up with the wrong benefits. Someone who knows all about the jobseeker's allowance cannot, under the present system, be reasonably assumed to be an authority on disability benefits. Higher-quality advice must be available to everyone.
  Many local authorities have proved that the concept of the one-stop shop works. If it covers advice and benefits, the new deal for disabled people and carer's allowances, dealing with compassion and real concern for the disabled people who need its services, will work.
  The system must treat disabled people with dignity. There will be an expectation that disabled people will take part in an interview with an adviser. The location and the information given must be accessible to the disabled person. If necessary, it should take place in the disabled person's home, so that the atmosphere is as relaxed as possible and conducive to a meaningful discussion on all aspects of work, benefits and other assistance that may be available. There should be no suggestion that force or blackmail will be used to get the disabled person into work against their will.
  Training for the advisers is a major investment. It is right to pilot the proposals. We must not rush the single gateway, because the quality of training must be right. The circumstances, conditions and premises must be accessible and there should be no workhouse atmosphere—none of the screens that form a barrier between the officer and the claimant.
  The experience of the new deal has often been a revelation to Employment Service staff. They have told me that it is what they came to the job for. They are able to give the quality advice that people need, instead of treating them as numbers and just trying to get on with the job. Dealing with interviewees as people is important for the new one-stop gateway.
  I was going to raise some of the major issues that have been raised by the disability lobby and some of the problems
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: The main thrust of the Bill is to remove more than £1 billion of benefit from widows, carers and sick and disabled people. The Liberal Democrats therefore strongly oppose it. It is not what people voted for when they elected Labour to government. It is not even what most Labour Members thought they were standing for in the election. If there are still Labour Members of principle who are prepared to stand up for the ideals for which their party has stood so proudly for so many years, I hope that they will have the courage of their convictions, as 47 of them bravely did when joining us in opposing the lone-parent benefit cuts in the previous Session.
  With much reluctance, we shall vote for the Conservative reasoned amendment. It is a feeble amendment, making little reference to the Bill's most obnoxious aspects—the benefit cuts. It is not even clear whether the Conservatives will oppose those cuts in Committee. We hear with an ironic laugh the Tories decrying the increased dependency on means-testing that

  243
  the Bill involves. Under the Conservatives, spending on means-tested benefits doubled, as did the number of people dependent on such benefits.
  We welcome the chance that the single gateway will provide for many people to discuss employment opportunities. We hope that the gateway will focus on more than just employment and will provide advice on benefit take-up, child care facilities and training opportunities. We want interviews to be focused on the individual, not on the benefit that they are claiming, providing support rather than threatening disentitlement.
  However, with that welcome come several warnings, some of which mirror the points made by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt). The Bill lists the benefit claimants who will be subject to the single gateway. There appear to be no exempted categories, although there will be some discretion in deferring interviews if they appear to be neither helpful nor appropriate. For people to have peace of mind, the Government must make it clear who will be required to attend an interview, and when.
  If the interview is to be solely work-focused, it is surely unsuitable to demand that everyone attend. Severely disabled people may benefit less from a work-focused approach, and more from a service-delivery approach. The Government must be prepared to adapt the gateway to provide for individuals in their own right. By bringing in categories such as carers in receipt of invalid care allowance, the Government risk placing too heavy an emphasis on paid work. Caring for elderly people, children or the sick and disabled is often in itself a full-time job, and it is high time the Government recognised that.
  We are told that interviews can take place in the home when it is not feasible or appropriate for claimants to visit an office. It is essential that that measure is interpreted generously. Jobcentres are frequently inaccessible to clients; indeed, something like one third of job centres do not have a disabled toilet. Disabled people—as well as those who live in rural areas—will benefit from the possibility of a home visit.
  As for those who must attend interviews in the office, will they receive some reimbursement for the costs of attending—as that, too, would only be fair? When people do not attend an interview, there must be some investigation of why they do not before the benefit is disallowed. For example, someone might have gone into a state of deep depression just before they were called for their interview, and that sort of reason must be taken into account.
  Given the climate of fear created by the benefit cuts—and following the disastrous benefit integrity project—claimants are likely to see the interview as nothing more than an attempt to refuse them benefits. The Government must strike a balance between policing claimants and supporting claimants. Both are equally important.
  If the Government take only one lesson from the benefit integrity project, it must be that training of staff is essential. In my constituency, a lone parent informed the Benefits Agency that she was going back to work. She handed in her benefit books, and was told to apply for family credit. No one told her to apply for the lone-parent benefit premium. Her housing benefit was altered,
  244
  and paid on the assumption that she was getting the lone-parent premium. When the housing benefit department explained the shortfall to her, it was too late for her to apply for lone-parent benefit. Such cases speak for themselves—adequate training is a must.
  The gateway provides an opportunity to simplify the system, but unless the Government make clear how the gateway interviews will interact with child support interviews, new deal interviews and the host of other assessment procedures that claimants have to undergo, they are threatening to create more complexity, not less. If the gateway is to be seen as opening an opportunity, rather than closing one, it must remain open after the client has got a job. The Government must recognise that job retention is at least as important as obtaining a job in the first place.
  If the Government want to end the something-for-nothing culture, as they claim, and if they want a true contract of rights and responsibilities between the claimant and the state, the gateway offers a valuable opportunity to strengthen the contract on both sides. Sadly, it seems likely, at present, that the gateway will be seen by claimants as an attempt by the authorities to strengthen their hand against that of the claimant.
  The Government want an end to the something-for-nothing culture—so whom do they target? They target the recently bereaved. They target those who become incapacitated after the age of 20—or, as we now hear and welcome, after the age of 25 if they are students. They target, disproportionately, women and carers. They penalise savers.
  The Bill removes more than £1 billion in benefits. The Secretary of State claims that he is not taking money from the poorest, and he is right to say that the safety net of means-tested benefits is not being removed. So keen is he on those benefits that his changes will force another 250,000 people on to means-tested benefits. The £1.2 billion has to come from somewhere. The first group to be targeted are widows. It never struck me that widows were guilty of something for nothing—yet the Government seem to believe that they are guilty to the tune of £500 million a year.
  The Secretary of State was keen to stress that the money does not come from the poorest claimants, but he is wrong—the poorest are equally affected. He is targeting everyone. Widows and widowers will benefit from the increased lump sum, but that is costing the Government only £70 million a year, and is nothing more than an overdue recognition of rising costs.
  Many of the poorest widows will be able to claim means-tested benefits when their bereavement allowance stops after six months. However, unless they have dependent children, all new widows and widowers will lose their state earnings-related pension scheme payments—on the basis of their spouse's contributions—altogether. These payments previously amounted to up to a quarter of widows' pensions.
  Many people have contributed to their pensions, believing that their partner would benefit. The Government are treating that prudence with contempt. In one part of the Bill, the Government's pensions proposals duck the issue of compulsion in second-tier pensions. However, here we find the Government producing a disincentive to save voluntarily. What a contradiction.

  245
  What of those widows and widowers with small lifetime savings of just £8,000? They will not be eligible for means-tested benefits, and they, too, will lose out. Sadly, they are often among those who, in terms of income, are the least well-off.
  The Government expect that, just six months after losing a spouse, men and women will find it easy to be back in work—in many cases, after many years out of the workplace. Have the Government no feeling or care for those people? Does the Secretary of State really believe that a woman who has suffered the trauma of losing her husband through suicide or a car accident can get straight back to work as if nothing had happened? The Government clearly know nothing about the psychology of bereavement if they think that that is how human beings behave.
  In case any hon. Member thinks that six months sounds reasonable, let no one forget that a widow who knows that her bereavement allowance will run out after only six months will worry about how she will manage thereafter many months before it does run out. The restriction of the bereavement allowance to just six months is unnecessary and cruel, and an attack on human beings when they are at their most vulnerable.
  The Government are right to extend widows' benefit to widowers. However, many will view that move with cynicism—after all, the Government only moved on the issue when confronted with a court case that was almost certain to force them to do what they are now claiming the credit for doing voluntarily. However, it is sheer opportunism to take the necessary reforms to widows' benefits and twist them so as to make some money for the Treasury. Having done so, the Government have done their best to portray the £100 million cost of extending benefits to widowers as the main effect of the changes, while conveniently hiding—and, apparently, forgetting—the £600 million cut in widows' pensions.
  While we are on the subject of bereavement, why is the lump sum payment not paid to bereaved pensioners as well? The Government could have used the opportunity of reforming widows' benefits to remove that piece of unfair age discrimination. We believe that there is no need to seek savings in bereavement benefits. No extra money need be spent, but the £500 million net cuts could be used to increase the time limit on the bereavement allowance, to include SERPS payments and to pay the lump sum payment to the bereaved of retirement age.
  Who else do the Government choose to target? They target sick and disabled people, and those who care for them. The Government now want to cut £700 million in disability benefits. Once again, those who are eligible for means-tested benefits will remain relatively unaffected, yet those with small lifetime savings will be excluded. The Government are targeting women, carers and those who have followed Government advice and saved for their retirement. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) hopes to speak on that point later.
  The Bill is a mixed bag, and is full of contradictions. The single gateway aims to encourage work, but cuts to incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance will prove a disincentive to take work.
  The stakeholder pension aims to encourage people to save, but the shift to means-testing will pull people in the other direction. The stakeholder pension and the measures
  246
  for pension splitting on divorce would seem to support women and carers, but they will simultaneously be penalised through the cuts in severe disablement allowance. The only coherent thread seems to be cutting benefits and promoting means-testing.
  That is not what the electorate hoped for when the morning of 2 May 1997 dawned and they woke up to a new Government. In benefits, Labour cuts have followed Tory cuts and it has been hard to tell the difference; but there is hope: already there are signs that some Labour Members may be prepared to say that enough is enough.
  After the lone-parent benefit fiasco, Labour Members who had supported the Government in the Lobby, some of them, I understand, in tears, are said to have sworn that they would never be prepared to act in that way again. Now they have the chance to show that they are prepared to stand up for their principles and to vote for a fairer, more just society in which we can reduce the gap between rich and poor. I hope that they will take that chance.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: This is an important day for the Government and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. No one who has witnessed his performance over the few months for which he has held the post could come to any conclusion other than one of admiration for the way in which he commands his brief, presents his brief to the House and regularly demonstrates the quality of humour, which is rare in politicians; it is even rarer for politicians to be able, as he is, to see the joke about themselves and to join in.
  Today, we learned of another quality of my right hon. Friend—one that is a crucial quality for someone in his position—knowing when to give way before one is defeated. I very much welcome the announcement of the crucial change of raising the age limit for severe disablement allowance from 20 to 25. The position was not defensible, and it shows good sense and compassion that my right hon. Friend moved quickly to confront reality.
  There is much in the Bill that Labour Members will want to support, so I will be very surprised if the enticement offered by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) has any effect other than to drive us together. The extension of disability benefits to children under five is welcome, and it is a great compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) who, in every year that I have been in the House, has made the case for that reform. It must be a sweet day for her to see that important concession made. Many parents with disabled children owe her a great debt.
  There is much to be welcomed in the single gateway. Not only do our constituents think that we have been lax in not operating the rule continuously since 1948, but many claimants themselves express surprise at how little interest Government officials take in them once they have registered for benefit. Before the general election, we said that we wanted to talk to people as they register for benefit and say, "This is the first day of the rest of your lives; how can we make the rest of your lives as happy and constructive as possible?" For that to work, attitudes will have to change in some local offices and staff will need to be trained in new ways; but I do not believe that there is a great deal to fear.
  If this great project, the Bill, is a craft that is about to set sail, it is still in harbour. The crew on this side of the House may be anxious to catch Ministers' ears and tell

  247
  them of the parts of the Bill that may cause trouble on the voyage. I regret to say that there are aspects of the Bill that are weakest where one would have thought that a Labour Government would be strongest and areas in which it seems that the Government are setting out to defeat their own objectives.
  The hon. Member for Newbury was right to say that he was puzzled by the Prime Minister saying that he wanted to root out the something-for-nothing society. The Bill takes much away from those who contributed in the sure faith that they would be able to draw when benefits were needed; but there is not much in the Bill that takes away from people who have contributed nothing or very little. Some of the crew may want to talk to the captain about matters of much concern before the great ship sets sail.
  The Government have two policies on pensions: the proposals in the first part of the Bill, grouped around the idea of the stakeholder; and the ideas, also quite properly being promoted, about trying to guarantee today's pensioners a decent minimum income. The two policies are inconsistent.
  As the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has demonstrated on several occasions, pensioners face a poverty trap—if their income is above a certain level, they are disqualified—and a savings chasm is opening up, so it will be impossible for people to save during their working lives sums that will allow them to breach the growing gap. There is that growing gap because, for all the good reasons in the world, the Government have said that they will index the guaranteed minimum against earnings, while most other pension incomes, if we are lucky, will be indexed against prices.
  Over time, the gap will grow and an increasing number of people who have done everything that the Government have said and do not want to be part of a something-for-nothing society—and would be appalled to think that they were being so categorised—will be told, as a reward, "Well done, good and faithful servant, but you didn't try hard enough and your pension isn't big enough" or "You didn't manage to amass enough savings." Those people will not be better off, and some of them will be worse off, than other people who laughed at the Government and decided not to behave properly. We are talking not about the very poorest people but about the bedrock of Labour supporters: the people who turned out for us in abundance at the general election. Those are the people who will lose.
  There is a similar problem with widows. It is not good enough for the Government to say that those who are currently widows will not be affected. Nobody, not even the Conservative party in government, came up with reforms of that kind. Many of our constituents are budgeting on the basis that, should they die, their wives will be covered by the scheme. They have had no option, because the scheme is compulsory, which I think is quite proper. They have not been able to put contributions into a private scheme to protect their wives. They now know that, if they die, the chances are that their wives will not be covered.
  It is impossible to square the provisions on incapacity benefit with the despicable phrase about something for nothing. We are talking about people who, through their working lives, have persevered and struggled to get back
  248
  to work, often many times, after suffering disability. They did that in the knowledge that their contribution conditions were safe—they had to make only one year's contribution in the whole of their working lives—but now that is to be changed, and they will have had to make one year's contribution in the past two years.
  The message will quickly go out from doctors and others, "Please don't bother to go back to work, where you may fail, because by doing so you will probably—not inevitably—disqualify yourself. Get on to benefit straight away, because that is the only way that you can secure the contribution that you've made." That is the very opposite of what the Government said before the election, during the election, and even in presenting the Bill.
  We are beginning to witness the targeting of some of our voters, who were targeted by the Conservatives and Mrs. Thatcher when they were in power. She targeted rewards such as tax concessions and council house sales, and we found that our vote was vulnerable at elections. During the passage of the Bill, I beg my hon. Friends to consider carefully how some of its provisions will strike at the best aspects of working-class decency. Our supporters look to us to protect those decencies, not to destroy them.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and I wish to contribute in the same spirit that he did. I recall my experience of 29 years working in the insurance and pensions industry, and I remind the House of my interest, especially the fact that I am the president of the Institute of Insurance Brokers and a member of the Insurance Brokers Registration Council, which is a regulator. We have had our share of work to do on the pensions mis-selling issue, about which we have had other debates.
  The industry feels a great sense of déjà vu at the Government's proposals for pension reform. The Government's objectives are similar to those of the 1980s and are also laudable. They include transferring provision for income in retirement from the state to personal pensions for as many people as possible, and to encouraging a greater uptake of pension provision. We all agree that the present arrangements are capable of improvement, but we should also remember that this country has done significantly better than most other countries in the European Union. We have greater provision, but we need to extend it into lower-income groups, because many in those groups have made little, if any, provision for their retirement.
  It is also clear that some lessons have been learnt from the problems that have beset the industry following the changes of the 1980s. The Government are right to concentrate their efforts on costs and charges, which were too high for many. Time does not allow an analysis of why that happened. We also have a much better regulated industry than we had in the late 1980s, and we have a more professional industry giving advice. It is to be hoped that the contracting-out arrangements will be better.
  Other problems remain, and I do not believe that the Government will achieve a smooth transition to stakeholder provision. There is a real danger of paralysis for the next two years, as people do nothing while waiting for stakeholder pensions to come on stream. Those people

  249
  in the under-£18,000-a-year income group will be most affected. In an intervention in the Secretary of State's speech, I commented about the lack of provision for mixed provision, and I wish to stress the importance of providing complete portability through the stakeholder arrangements.
  Stakeholder pensions have been given a positive welcome by the industry. I chair the all-party insurance and financial services group and we have had numerous meetings on the Green Paper and the Government's proposals. More meetings are likely, because major concerns remain. The benefit design of a stakeholder pension is much the same as a personal pension. It will be taxed as earned income. Yes, it will be available over a long time, between the ages of 50 and 75, and there will be an entitlement to a quarter lump sum, tax free, but the pension will still be based on an annuity purchase. The industry and many right hon. and hon. Members understand and appreciate the concern that annuity purchase currently represents poor value and is the major cause of many of the losses on personal pensions that have attracted compensation. That will cause a big headache for arrangements in the second phase. There is no compulsion to include life assurance. Nor is there any guarantee that people will be better off, because the annuity payment may not be index linked. That is the other side of the coin of the problem mentioned by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead.
  The biggest problem arises from the generous provisions on contributions that the Government propose—100 per cent. of salary or £3,600, whichever is the lower. That is good for those under the figure, and it is a huge improvement on what happens now for personal pensions. However, it is incongruous and illogical that the benefit of that improved contributions limit will not apply to personal pensions. Another problem is that the five-year rule, and even the one-year rule, will be income related. It would have been better to allow everyone a flat rate contribution of £3,600 regardless of income. In an ideal world, that would apply equally to personal pensions, and I urge the Government to think seriously about that suggestion.
  The low charges that are envisaged mean that commission is unlikely to be payable, but advice is important and information is not advice. The proposal for maximum charges is less of a problem for large contributions paid by cheque or by direct debit than it is for small contributions paid weekly or monthly. There is strong support in the industry for a requirement for employers to provide access to stakeholder schemes, but individuals should be free to nominate their preferred stakeholder, especially if they move between jobs. Serious practical difficulties could arise for those people whose income fluctuates either side of the threshold, at both ends of the spectrum at the interface between the second state pension and the stakeholder pension at one end, and between the stakeholder pension and personal pensions or other arrangements at the other.
  I emphasise again the need for flexibility and mixed provisions. I cannot understand the logic of arguing that people who have personal pensions now but who will fall in the stakeholder income group should have to cancel those contracts to contribute to a stakeholder pension. That is illogical. I understand the Secretary of State's point about costs and charges, but there is a danger that personal pension holders will be penalised twice over.
  250
  If his argument is that, in some instances, the personal pensions are poor value, why disallow the benefit improvements to personal pension holders that will be allowed to stakeholders? That, too, is illogical. It is no solution to cancel policies and turn them into stakeholder plans.
  Costs are not the sole problem. No one has yet addressed the regulatory complexity that is placed on the industry by the Superannuation Funds Office and the Inland Revenue, which adds to costs. Equally, inflexibility undermines value.
  In conclusion, I shall make a final, general point. Major policy changes in the pension sector must be long-term initiatives. Contributors and pensioners will invest and draw their benefit under successive Governments, and it will be in no one's interest to anticipate that there will be another major upheaval in 10 or 15 years. Therefore, it is crucial that, with the Bill, we achieve certainty and stability in pension provision, especially for people in low-income groups.
  The Government published the Bill before the consultation ended. I do not quibble with that, but it behoves the Government to listen to the representations of industry. I hope that the Bill is not sent into a Standing Committee with the intention that it will emerge in precisely the same form. It is obvious that there must be some flexibility and some listening: if there is, we can get the Bill right.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: The Bill is important and complex. It is an omnibus Bill, and deals with a wide range of items on the social policy agenda. However, one common theme is obvious—the attempt of the social security system to deal with substantial changes in our society. Those changes include aging and the implications for pensions, the approach to death and bereavement, and issues to do with disability, employment, patterns of work, and unemployment.
  The modern feature with which Parliament is having to get to grips is family insecurity. There is no dodging the need for the state to get involved in personal relationships at their most raw and bloody. Hon. Members know, from our advice surgeries, the difficulties that have arisen with the Child Support Agency, and we shall see similar difficulties arise out of pension sharing on divorce. The personal has become political, and we have to meet that challenge.
  As an aside to the problem of pension sharing on divorce, I think that, sooner or later, the House will have to get to grips with the related phenomenon of cohabitation. A view on marriage that is not balanced by a view on cohabitation means that there is a risk that all sorts of incentives and disincentives will be built into the system. The House needs to be aware of that problem.
  With the Bill, we are dealing with very detailed questions. I hope that the House can change the culture of Standing Committees, so that the Executive's proposals can be scrutinised seriously. Under the previous Government, I got very fed up because Conservative Members were unable to say anything about the measures that went through the Standing Committees. The House of Commons must adopt a grown-up approach to scrutiny: we shall need it if we are to get this very important measure right.

  251
  As well as detailed scrutiny, we need an overall vision of social security. The Government have a good story to tell about the health service and education, but what is the story that we want to tell the public about social security? Where is the vision, and what are the underlying principles? It is more difficult to spread good news about social security than about other matters, because the minutiae often get in the way of the storyline.
  I think that we need to ground our approach to social security in a sense of moral philosophy—not as a theoretical proposition, but as something that can translate easily into a popular message. The problem is to balance matters of citizenship, and of rights and responsibilities, in these modern and complex times. The idea is hardly new: it is one of the oldest in democratic political philosophy, but it is a rich seam. Although people often articulate the idea, the connection is seldom made between the rhetoric about rights and responsibilities and the details of social policy.
  I believe that we need to make that connection so that we can explain to people about rights and duties, and build a popular consensus about social security reform. Much of the task is easy. Most people accept that, if they are able to do so, they have a duty to find employment. Also, most people accept that there is a duty to maintain children, even when a family splits up due to divorce or separation.
  However, people also have rights with regard to children, such as a right to receive child benefit. When it comes to the care of elderly people—I expect that the royal commission report will be available shortly—we have a moral duty to help our elders when they grow frail, but we also have rights to some social policy partnership. The royal commission will tackle that, and the strategy for carers set out by the Government a week or so ago came at the problem from another angle.
  In social security matters, the ethic of duties and rights, and the balance to be struck between them, finds its best expression—historically and probably for the next 50 years—in terms of contributions and benefits, and in the importance of the social insurance principle. We undermine the social insurance principle at our peril—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Those who have undermined it most agree with me. It is a sight for sore eyes to see them reincarnated as opponents of the means test.
  We all hope that the single gateway will turn into an Arc de Triomphe for the Government, who are right to make the connection between social security and employment. It is perfectly reasonable to tell people that they have a right to claim a benefit, but that they should go for an interview, and think about the rest of their lives. That principle was set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and there can be no quarrel with it.
  Although we must approach the matter of single parents with sensitivity, the Government must think it through carefully. I do not want to sound macho, but it is nonsense in this modern age that single parents can stay on income support until their youngest child is 16. I put it to the House that, if we were thinking afresh today about that rule, we would not specify an age of 16. We would not be as cruel as the people in Wisconsin, who set a limit
  252
  of 12 weeks, but we might adopt the European model, which holds that the time for a parent to start thinking about work is when the child begins school.
  There may be many exceptions, but the quid pro quo should be that, for people with children under five—below school age—we should be more generous in terms of the benefits that we give to the youngest children. That would mean that the difficult judgment that many parents face about when to work and when to stay at home to care for children is taken by the person who knows best. Mother knows best, not the state. I want there to be more rigour in our thinking about the obligations and rights of lone parents.
  I shall end by expressing two cautions about the Bill, much of which I support. The first has to do with vocabulary. We need to be careful about how we present the Bill to a wider public, and we must be especially sensitive when we present it to the weakest and most powerless people in our society.
  In the previous Parliament, the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), was on one occasion to be seen speaking to the inhabitants of a council estate. There is something unedifying in watching powerful male Ministers in suits lecture single mothers and children, who are among the poorest and weakest members of our community. We must be aware of the language that is used. As I argued when I spoke about the balance between rights and duties, it is possible to speak about obligations and entitlements in a sensible and moderate language.
  This is not weak stuff. Sometimes, there is a need for rigour: the reform of the Child Support Agency, for example, has meant that most fathers now—at long last—pay maintenance. However, we also need a sense of compassion when we deal with many of our fellow citizens. I hope that, as well the rigour that will be needed, the milk of human kindness will run through the Bill.
  My second caution is also important, and it has to do with social administration. A key test is our need to be sensitive and professional in the administration of much of the Bill. If we are not careful, we may feel pessimistic about the experience of the Child Support Agency or the benefit integrity project. The best of policies fall down if their administration is not right.
  We are dealing with some of the most vulnerable people. We are talking about mothers who have sometimes been victims of domestic violence and who turn up at the social security office emotionally and physically bruised. We are talking of people who have the most severe disabilities, many of whom would dearly love a job and need supportive employment schemes. Many people in emotional pain come to the state for support, and the gateway will rightly institutionalise that. The challenge for the Government lies in turning social policy, much of which I support, into sound social administration.
  7.51 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It is always stimulating to follow the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), who clearly thinks deeply about social policy and usually comes up with interesting ideas. If I am lucky enough to sit on the Committee, I hope that he will be able to join us, although I suspect that that would do little for his blood pressure because he would not be able to speak as he wished.

  253
  The hon. Gentleman said that a theme ran through the Bill. I agree that there is one, but that theme was the one identified by the Secretary of State. Throughout the Bill runs a discouragement of saving and an increase in means-testing. Those two things run hand in hand, and either the Government are prepared to accept their implications or, as has happened time after time, they have failed to think them through.
  If people stop saving because they will be better off on benefits, wealth creation will suffer. People will become more dependent on the state, and taxes—direct or by stealth—would have to increase. Given our demographic structure—I need not run through statistics that we all know—those increased taxes would fall on fewer and fewer working people.
  We must ensure that people who can save do save for their retirement. The Bill will put them off because people on a lower or medium income will see no reason to save. If the minimum income guarantee, housing benefit and council tax benefit are combined, someone on an average wage—the national average is about £19,000 a year—would have to retire with a pension fund of £100,000 to achieve the same income. Someone on an average wage would need to save roughly £1,400 a year to manage that.
  That money represents the family holiday. Should a family forgo the annual holiday? Should they forgo a new car, saved for over several years? Should they save the money so that they can end up with an income precisely the same as the income that they would receive from the state? I cannot see people making that illogical economic decision. They will decide to live on the state, and that will, dare I say it, be even easier when they receive a national insurance rebate under the Bill's proposed system.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, we must not only consider what people would save in a pension fund, but warn them that, under the current annuity system, they will not get the income that they expect. Annuities are giving rotten returns. The Government are reforming pensions in the Bill, and they should have included annuities in that reform.
  If, as is foreseeable, we are about to enter a period of high growth but falling prices, incomes will fall, and annuities for people on pensions will be yet further reduced. Meanwhile, income from investments will be doing very well. We shall produce a generation of people embittered by the fact that they have not been able to maximise their income in retirement because the Government failed to take the opportunity to reform annuity law. We should ensure that people have options so that they may choose how best to ensure an income in retirement. We should ask whether maintaining the rigid rules about annuities is the best way forward for everyone.
  The proposals on widow's benefit and incapacity benefits also militate against saving, encouraging people to go on to means-tested benefits. I sponsored a ten-minute rule Bill proposed by the late Judith Chaplin—then the hon. Member for Newbury—which called for equal pensions for widowers, so I have no problem with equality. As the work market develops, I believe that more and more women will build their own entitlements because they will always be in work. We must ask whether a widow's benefit is necessary in the long run.
  254
  I accept the Government's argument on that point, but their proposals will militate against saving for retirement among both widows and widowers.
  I would like to know how the Bill affects the working families tax credit and widowed parents who return to work. Will they keep their widowed parents allowance as well as WFTC and their income? Or will they lose the allowance? That might create a poverty trap, but it could equally be seen as a waste of the state's money.
  The Government have missed another opportunity—the chance to return unfunded Government pension schemes such as those for teachers. The schemes are good for teachers, although they would probably do better in the private sector. However, because they are unfunded, they are paid out of current income. That is not the best way in which to provide for teachers in the long run, and other pension schemes within the Government's ambit should also have been reconsidered. Perhaps we may see some Government amendments along those lines.
  The Bill is vague on pension splitting. I hope that our debates in Committee will allow us to change the system of scrutiny from negative resolution of statutory instruments to the affirmative procedure. That would allow important and detailed rules and regulations to be debated in the House.
  There is increasing complexity as benefits move towards greater means-testing, and greater administration costs are associated with that. There is also a further weakening of the contributory principle. The Royal National Institute for the Blind has pointed out some of the problems, and the Secretary of State has amended one proposal accordingly.
  Let me turn to the personal capability assessment. I want to be sure about how some cases from my constituency will be covered by the proposals. For example, how will mental illness be assessed? A constituent of mine—a paranoid psychotic—is being refused benefit. How will his case be assessed under the new arrangements?
  I am glad that disability living allowance is to be extended to three and four-year-olds, but I would take it even further down the age scale because a greater number of disabled children are being born and they require extra help from the very beginning. Paediatric nurses and doctors have been lobbying me for years on that point.
  We will be taking up a number of issues in Committee and I look forward to being able to press the Government even further on the matter. My general impression of the Bill is that, despite its one or two good points, fundamentally, it will reduce more people to dependency on the state, rather than on themselves, and increase means-testing, thus discouraging savings.
  8 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I have some sympathy with the view of a number of hon. Members that the Bill is far too big. It contains at least three major elements, all of which deserve detailed scrutiny. I imagine that those hon. Members who are fortunate enough—if that is the way to describe it—to be appointed to the Standing Committee to deal with the Bill will be looking towards their summer holidays by the middle of May, rather than detailed scrutiny of clause 64. If Parliament is to discuss such major legislation, it is important that it is produced in such a way that each section can

  255
  be thoroughly scrutinised—pensions generally, pension splitting on divorce, disability benefits and the many other aspects of the Bill.
  I am also concerned at the language used in the introduction of the Bill and the Daily Mail type of reporting that has surrounded it. I come from that tradition in the Labour party that believes in a universal welfare state. It is something that the party was founded to achieve and has campaigned to preserve and extend. The party was founded on a belief that society as a whole has a responsibility to insure all its members against homelessness, poverty and ignorance—all of which were envisaged in the Beveridge report and in the post-war consensus surrounding the welfare state.
  Language such as the "something-for-nothing society" has been used. Many of my constituents are poor and up against it—many other hon. Members represent similar people. Often, they are unemployed or have difficulty finding a job that lasts more than six months or pays anything like the proposed minimum wage—never mind above that—and they rely on state benefits to survive. About one third of schoolchildren are relying on income support. We should be a little more careful about the language that we use. We are talking about the life blood of an awful lot of people.
  My constituency is paraded weekly in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph as the home of the Islington set and extremely wealthy. In fact, it has the highest rate of long-term unemployment of any English constituency, a normal unemployment rate of well over 15 per cent. and many inhabitants who are very poor indeed. The black unemployment levels are far higher than the white unemployment levels. All those issues need to be tackled.
  I welcome the Government's willingness, preparedness and determination to deal with those issues of multiple poverty and deprivation, but, by going away from the very principles on which the Labour party was founded, we do ourselves no good with people who have loyally supported us in election after election and who turned out in such vast numbers in May 1997 to get rid of a Government who had created massive gaps between the richest and poorest and who, despite all their attempts at reinventing themselves, had been seen as the party of the means test and of meanness in our society.
  I shall concentrate on pensions. The state pension was a marvellous achievement when it was first introduced by Lloyd George. However, before the Liberals become too excited, I must point out that I have a little booklet at home, which was presented to me by a local pensioners' group, which states:
  "No thanks to Lloyd George. The story of how the state old age pension was won."
  He was forced into it by radical groups who met in Walworth road, where the Labour party used to have its head office—the spirit of many of us is still there.
  Obviously, the introduction of the state old-age pension was a huge step forwards, as was the passage of the National Assistance Bill, which is still an important landmark piece of legislation because it envisaged the complete welfare state. That legislation saved many asylum seekers from the poverty into which the Tory Government tried to force them three years ago.
  256
  The state pension needed reform and development and the most important reforms were introduced by Barbara Castle when she was Secretary of State for Social Services in the 1970s. She introduced the state earnings-related pension scheme for people who did not have access to occupational pensions and the linking of the state pension with earnings or prices, whichever rose the fastest, in 1975. By 1980, the state pension was approaching a quarter of average earnings. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Howe, abolished the link with earnings and linked it only to prices. As a result, it has fallen enormously in value in the past 18 years.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that Age Concern reckons that, by 2050, pensioners who get the state retirement pension and the second pension in full and who have had an income of £9,000 a year or less will receive the princely sum of the equivalent of £82 a week, which is no more than the state pension that was created by the previous Labour Government?
  Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Before anyone else seeks to intervene, I must say that I will not give way again as I have only four minutes left.
  The National Pensioners Convention, at the request of the Labour party, made strong representations concerning future pension policy. It met the party in opposition and has met the Secretary of State and other Ministers since we came to power in May 1997. The convention has argued strongly for the linking of the state pension with earnings as a way to ensure that all pensioners share in the rising living standards of our society.
  The Government introduced the pensions Green Paper, which we are not debating today. I am a little disappointed that a major part of the Bill relates to pensions, putting into legislative effect part of what is in the Green Paper. Many members of the NPC and others are concerned that a consultation process that they had thought would continue until the end of March has become part of a legislative process. The chances of changing a major Bill like this in Committee are, as everyone knows, fairly minimal.
  The Government envisage a minimum income guarantee for pensioners of £75 a week. When I discussed the matter with the Islington pensioners forum, I was explaining the figure, when some disgruntled voice from the third row asked, "What's so great about £75 a week?" I thoroughly agree. The pensioners thought that that was a reasonable starting point to get the state pension to now, but that we needed more. During the previous Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), others and I were discussing in the Select Committee on Social Security the future of the secondary pension that was proposed at the time. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind my quoting him, but he said that, if the political will was not there to maintain the link with earnings of the existing state pension, who was to say that it would be there to maintain the value of any minimum income guarantee or secondary pension in the future? I do not understand why we cannot take this opportunity to revalue the state pension and continue with SERPS, perhaps altering it in some way to assist the poorest, instead of creating a market in which an even bigger slice of the pensions bill is to be paid by individuals into private pension schemes, which probably cost more to administer than a state scheme.

  257
  One figure out of the Green Paper that disturbs me greatly is to be found on page 14. If 100 equals the amount of Government money that is spent at present per pensioner, by 2050, under the proposals, it will be down to 58—in other words, public expenditure on pensions will be nearly halved in the next 50 years. Having been mis-sold pensions and conned in the 1996 legislation by the former Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) about the real effects of the mixture of public and private pensions, the public are prepared to support the idea of a much higher universal state pension. I wish that we were taking the opportunity to achieve that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) tabled early-day motion 328, which envisages an increase in the state pension, which could be funded with the existing surpluses within the national insurance fund. We should be taking this opportunity to declare ourselves in favour of the principle of a high level of state pension, of efficient and reliable public pension provision, rather than forcing an awful lot of people in middle income and middle age down the rocky road of personal private pensions, which have already been such a bad experience for so many people.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to be able to take part in this interesting debate. It is a shame that the many hon. Members who want to speak are limited to only 10 minutes, which prevents them from taking interventions, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said. Good points have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The Bill is both immensely important and immensely complicated. I suggest to Ministers that one way of giving hon. Members who have not had the opportunity of being behind the curtain of Government secrecy a means better to understand the problems faced by Ministers would be to extend the process of pre-legislative scrutiny. When the Select Committee on Social Security, which I have the privilege to Chair, scrutinised drafts of parts III and IV of the Bill, I was amazed by the complexity of the interrelated problems that Ministers have to face. It is a source of wonder to me that anything that makes sense emerges from the Department of Social Security, if the experience of my Select Committee is anything to go by. That is a serious point: we should all be more humble about how difficult and complicated cracking the problems can be.
  While on the subject of parts III and IV, about which I could speak for my entire 10 minutes without hesitation, deviation or repetition, I want to bring to Ministers' attention my belief that the implementation date of April 2000 is a year too early. To achieve the complex changes, the cultural shifts and the training that are necessary in a way that is successful and does not hurt people or cause casualties, it is necessary to consider seriously the need to take more time before the pension splitting on divorce provisions of the Bill—which should probably have appeared in separate legislation—are brought into force. I hope that the Government and the Standing Committee will give that serious consideration.
  I am rather disappointed by the stakeholder pensions provisions. I thought that stakeholder pensions were a good idea, but they are likely to be overcomplicated and
  258
  overregulated in their implementation, which will lead to all sorts of problems for existing occupational schemes. In addition, the Bill as it stands does not address the problems faced by the self-employed. I hope that the Standing Committee will have a chance to scrutinise that problem properly.
  I should tell the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) that his ghost lingers in the Social Security Committee. We are considering the possibility of carrying out an extended inquiry into the future of the contributory principle in the hope that such an investigation will inform future debates. In the past, the hon. Gentleman argued powerfully and cogently that we should take such action. We hope to get our report out before the contributory principle is completely abolished—we shall have to be quick.
  Like the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and others, I am extremely worried about the annuity problems that have arisen—how much annuities can provide and the inflexibility of annuity provision. I await on tenterhooks the outcome of the Equitable Life case, which relates to the guaranteed annuity option question. Those matters are extremely important, for they will have a dramatic impact on the future provision of pensions. The Standing Committee and the Government will have to give consideration to that problem.
  I am excited about the opportunities that can be won through the introduction of gateways and I subscribe to everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said. There are difficulties, but gateways are a potentially revolutionary way of providing help, back-up and support to the people we want to serve. The 12 pilot projects must be considered carefully. I believe that it is necessary to bring together, in a revolutionary way, the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Social Security if those gateways are to be introduced in a way that fully exploits their potential.
  I should remind the House that jobs do not always eradicate poverty: many families in this country live in poverty even though some of their members are in work. Furthermore, I do not need to remind hon. Members who represent constituencies with higher unemployment rates than mine that there are not always jobs to be had. The Bill's provisions have to be implemented sensitively.
  I have recently seen some interesting statistics relating to the issue of compulsion. According to figures from the Library, benefits sanctions and the element of compulsion in the jobseeker's allowance are brought to bear in only one in 40 cases—that is before appeals are taken into account, so the final figure could be less—because people do not respond in good faith to the rules. If we are talking only about shirkers—the pejorative term that people like to use when referring to such cases—or those who are swinging the lead, we must remember that, at most, they comprise only one in every 40 cases. We could have a whole Bill dealing with gateways, integrating the work of the DFEE and the DSS. The Standing Committee must look carefully at the details of clause 47.
  Incapacity benefit is a crucial element of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was right to express his concerns, and I share them. I have a letter from Patricia Alexander of Currie, in Midlothian in Scotland; I do not have time to quote from it as extensively as I should have liked. She suffers from

  259
  rheumatoid arthritis and she is obviously scared rigid by the possibility of the interviews. She writes:
  "I can't help wondering at what point the interview stops being friendly … I have a knot in my stomach thinking about this. You"—
  she is addressing the Secretary of State, not me—
  "have turned me into an insecure sponger on society where previously I was making the best of the life I have and convincing myself my life wasn't really so bad."
  I shall send the letter to the Secretary of State and hope that he and his officials will look into this lady's case. I suspect that she would not be compelled to attend for interview, given that her physical condition is so bad, but she does not know whether or not that is so, and she is worried about it.
  On a technical, but extremely important, point, I come to clause 67, about which the Secretary of State has written to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. The clause introduces a power to incur expenditure on the basis of a simple, straightforward statutory instrument, not a Bill. Since 1932, the House of Commons has placed severe constraints on the deployment of public expenditure, but the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to anticipate changes two years in advance and set in motion preparatory work, and it enables him to make such proposals through statutory instruments.
  I admit that that utilises the same technique as local government special grant reports, whereby the reports have to come before the House for consideration. However, I have to tell Ministers that I reserve my position on that question. I hope that, if the Government go down that route, they will seriously consider publishing drafts of such orders. What does the Select Committee on Procedure think? I suspect that the procedure could become available to any Secretary of State, not just the Secretary of State for Social Security. If so, the Social Security Committee will want to see any special grant-type report dealing with preparatory expenditure.
  Preparatory expenditure is justified in terms of paving the way for IT provision to be put in place—I am in favour of IT provision, as is the Minister of State. However, I have to point out that the procedure introduced in the Bill represents a dramatic departure from the way in which Parliament has controlled Government expenditure, and it should not be taken lightly. I hope that, before the Standing Committee reaches clause 67, the Secretary of State will have made clear to the PAC, the Social Security Committee and the Procedure Committee how he intends to deploy those provisions. If he does not deploy them in a constrained and careful way, he will drive a coach and horses through House of Commons control over an important area of public expenditure.
  8.20 pm
  Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: Discussions about welfare reform often generate more heat than light, but tonight's debate has been reasonable and not in that vein. When we support welfare reform, we are sometimes accused of attacking the most vulnerable members of society and those in deepest poverty. Such claims are rich coming from Conservative
  260
  Members who forced more people into poverty by putting them on benefit in order to massage the unemployment figures under the previous Government.
  It is important to put my remarks in context. When I was a small child, my father became ill and was hospitalised for two years. He spent a further two years recovering at home and then secured a succession of poorly paid jobs. I know what it is like to live in poverty: to live from day to day. At the time, my mother was trying to raise three children and maintain some sort of dignity. I know what it is like to live on benefit. Believe me, our lives began to change only when my father began working again. He might have had poorly paid jobs, but at least he was in the labour market. That is the important principle behind welfare reform that the Government are trying to achieve.
  Those whom we are trying to help back to work will at least receive a minimum wage. We did not have that. It is not a great wage but, together with access to lifelong learning and further education, it is a first step towards prosperity. It is wrong to describe any discussion about welfare reform as an attack on the poor. The current system of benefits has not released one person from poverty. It is now clear to everyone that, for those who can work, employment is the only route out of poverty.
  Our country is not full of workshy individuals and families: tens of thousands of people are denied access to work and do not receive the adequate financial support that would allow them a decent quality of life and some dignity. Thousands of long-term sick and disabled people who want to return to work are denied the support and assistance that they need in order to take that vital step and seek employment. Under the current system, thousands of people with disabilities who will never be able to work do not receive adequate financial support and cannot enjoy a decent quality of life.
  It is quite wrong to portray this Bill as a crackdown or a squeeze on the poorer members of society. In fact, it is quite the reverse: it seeks to ensure that those in real need are supported at a proper level. We must all accept that the present benefit system does not work. The gap between rich and poor is wider now than at any other time this century. One in three children lives in poverty—we should be ashamed of that statistic. In the main, people's health and education achievements continue to reflect the social class from which they come.
  Tinkering with the present system will not impact to any degree on the social or economic inequalities in Britain today. That is why we should welcome the Bill and embrace the opportunity in Committee to discuss the real issues and the meat of the legislation. The present system traps people in poverty. It was not designed to do that, which is why the new deal has been welcomed by young people, the long-term unemployed, lone parents and the disabled. The Bill is based on the principle of work for those who can work and security for those who cannot.
  I am concerned about the plight of those people who have long-term debilitating illnesses, such as ME. They struggled for years to have ME recognised: first, as an illness and, secondly, for benefit purposes. Anyone who knows ME sufferers will be aware of the appalling effect that the condition has on their lives and on their families. Access to incapacity benefit made the lives of ME sufferers less stressful, which is very important to the recovery process.

  261
  Many people, particularly the young, recover from illness. However, in the past they received no assistance in returning to work. They had to find themselves jobs and were removed from the benefit system as soon as they secured employment. Because it was a contributory scheme based on previous earnings, those who bravely tried to return to work but failed when their health deteriorated lost their benefit at a higher level. As a result, people had no incentive to try to return to work and became trapped on benefit. That is extremely distressing for people suffering from illnesses—especially when the removal of stress contributes to recovery. The system that was designed to help is delaying the recovery process.
  People with long-term illnesses should derive some comfort from the measures in the Bill. As well as determining entitlement to benefit, the reform of the all-work test will provide information about people's capabilities and may be used to plan a return to work—if people are able to do so. The single gateway interview will ensure that those who claim incapacity benefit receive help in planning a route back to work or receive the benefits to which they are entitled. The creation of a single point of access, involving the Employment Service, Benefits Agency, local authorities and the Child Support Agency, should simplify the whole process and make it much less threatening.
  Since the general election, the change of culture in the Employment Service has been remarkable. With the creation of the new deal, clients view staff much more positively—they are seen as providing assistance. Anyone can see that the creation of personal advisers has been a tremendous success. Ordinary people know that they are now receiving the kind of professional help that the better-off could always procure and that they are involved in making decisions about their own lives. The difference is tangible when one walks through the door of my local employment office.
  We cannot ask agency employees to change without proper training. Prompted by past problems, the trade unions fought for and achieved the installation of security barriers between staff and their clients. That state of affairs was always unacceptable, but the real antagonism between staff and clients proved that the system was not working. The Government must give an undertaking that all staff will feel comfortable with the new approach and that people will have a different experience. That will involve a real commitment to training and a change in attitude that is crucial to the success of the legislation.
  One of the lessons that my parents learned during my father's period of unemployment was that part of the key to future success was access to education—lifelong learning. That is how one gets out of unemployment, and the Government's commitment to that is crucial.
  With the changes that the Government have already introduced, the millions of pounds being spent, the multi-agency approach to tackle our most deprived areas, the minimum wage, the working families tax credit, nursery places, help with child care, education and maintenance allowances for 16 to 18-year-olds from poor families and the changes being introduced by the Bill, we shall begin to attack the endemic poverty that exists in far too many areas in Britain. That is when we offer real equality of opportunity to the people whom we are elected to represent.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) will forgive me for the fact that time prevents me from following up her speech, but she seems to have been the only Back Bencher so far to see any merit in the Bill.
  The balance of the debate on both sides of the House has been clear. The measure conjures up a curious picture of a stormy sea and sky, with the good ship SS Britain heading for the rocks. The crew rebel, sack the captain and officers and replace them. The new captain appoints a sturdy helmsman from Birkenhead who sets a new course, then sacks him and replaces him with the deputy purser, who puts the ship back on the original course and piles on more coal.
  The central weakness of our benefits system is means-testing, which provides the strongest possible disincentive to save and, in some cases, to work. The worst features of the system were introduced in 1988 and I make no bones about that—I was new to the House then and I have since written a number of papers arguing that. As several hon. Members on both sides of the House have implied, the measure goes further down exactly the same route and it will result in a huge increase in costs and extend dependency, particularly but not exclusively among elderly people.
  Mr. Andy King: Rubbish.
  Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish", but let us consider pensions. In 1988, pension provision in this country was on course and we had by far the highest level of occupational pensions in Europe—an achievement of which to be proud. Year by year, the proportion was rising and indeed, in 1988, already more than half the number half of pensioners had an occupational pension. At the same time, the proportion of pensioners reliant on income support progressively dropped until, in 1988, it was less than 14 per cent.
  The changes made in 1988, which in many respects are copied and amplified by the pension provisions in the Bill, introduced a income support supplement for pensioners, paid on a means-tested basis. We also changed the capital rule on housing benefit. The justification given by Ministers then was exactly the same as that given by Ministers today: that we were focusing on need.
  What happened? The effect on pensioners was electric. On the one hand, the proportion of people with occupational pensions continued to rise. Had those changes not taken place, one would have expected the proportion of pensioners reliant on means-tested benefit to decline further over the next four or five years from 14 per cent. to 11 or 12 per cent. Far from it. The proportion increased from 14 to 16 per cent.—a rise of one seventh.
  Let me state that effect in plain English. Throughout the country, hundreds of thousands of pensioners dumped their savings. Who can blame them? They were warned that they would be punished by reductions in their housing benefit if they did not do so and rewarded by a supplement on income support if they did. That is exactly what the Government are doing with their minimum pension guarantee, which will affect a much larger number of people.

  263
  The parallel with the Bill could hardly be closer. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and other Members on both sides of the House have outlined the measures in such detail that I do not want to repeat their remarks. Not only will there be an even greater disincentive for those with modest savings to retain them but, for the first time, those who are likely to qualify for modest pensions will have a strong incentive to stop saving into their pension funds. The reasons for that have been explained carefully and at length by several Members who understand pensions extremely well, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who is an expert on the pensions industry.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Particularly pensions for the self-employed.
  Mr. Brazier: As my hon. Friend says, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale is particularly knowledgeable about the self-employed.
  I remember a jibe made by Labour Back Benchers in a number of social security debates. I was proud of many actions taken by the previous Government, but I was not proud of their actions on social security. I listened to the jibe of Labour Members, who asked, "How can the Conservative Government argue that the better-off need incentives to work harder but the poor do not?" I thought that there was a lot of truth in that jibe and, when it was made by those such as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I felt embarrassed. Now, unbelievably, a Labour Government have extended means-testing for working people with 89 per cent. tapers in the working families tax credit going right up the income scale and the measure before us provides pensioners with a huge disincentive to save. Of course, colleagues have also mentioned the impact that it will have on incentives for the disabled, widowers and several other groups.
  In opposition, Labour again and again made points about the weaknesses in what we were doing. We often heard the then Leader of the Opposition—now the Prime Minister—say, "Let us move from a handout to a hand up." I was one of those who were writing pamphlets in the background, saying that we needed to try to eliminate the disincentives in the system that the extension of means-testing had brought. I also heard the detailed ideas advanced by people, including the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and many colleagues far more distinguished than me—the late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams prominent among them.
  I can hardly believe it. We now have a Labour Front-Bench team putting before the House measures that would extend further up the income scale all the worst features of the changes that we made, while starting to unravel the one really good thing that we did in welfare: the encouragement of the growth of occupational pensions and pensions for the self-employed. We were scoring about five out of 10; the present Government seem determined to score about nought out of 10.
  That jibe is not quite fair. A few small provisions round the margins are good. I welcome the introduction of the pension for widowers. A close friend, who was a
  264
  contemporary of mine at school, is bringing up a little boy. He has had mental health problems and he is struggling, and it is grossly unfair that he does not get similar treatment to a widow. I welcome the fact that several small measures in the Bill will be helpful.
  The truth is, though, that this measure characterises everything that is worst about the new Labour party. It bears no resemblance to the traditional views of Labour, grounded in the Beveridge report, which is the basis for the post-war consensus. Clement Attlee would not recognise it. It bears no resemblance to the modern thinking on occupational pensions that spans so much of the political spectrum. It bears no resemblance to the pledges and aims that were so articulately outlined by Labour Front-Bench Members before the general election. It is nonsense.
  I acknowledged that the problems in the process started with the mistakes that we made in 1988, but it is incredible how, month after month, at Social Security Question Time, in social security debates and when measures are brought before the House, whenever an hon. Member says, "But you are introducing more means-testing in the face of all the evidence of the damage that it does," Ministers respond by saying, "But the Conservatives did it first."
  Ministers may be surprised to hear this, but actually, we lost the last general election, and I am one of those who believes that our introduction of means-testing and the impact that that had on working-class families was one reason why we did so. The British people did not vote to change the captain and officers because they wanted more coal put on, more steam got up and a faster journey towards the rocks for the benefit system—but that is exactly what the Labour Front-Bench team is delivering.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Roger Berry: It is tempting to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). For weeks, I have observed the Tory party reinventing itself as the party that opposes means-testing and supports the contributory principle. That sits ill with all that the previous Government did, but Back Benchers have only 10 minutes each in which to speak in the debate, so I shall not spend more time on that.
  I shall say a few words about the provisions in this detailed, complex and important Bill that relate to disabled people. I happen to be secretary of the all-party disablement group. We made a written submission to the Secretary of State at the end of December 1998, and I should like to place on record our gratitude for our meeting with my right hon. Friend a few weeks ago. I am pretty certain that the ink was dry on the Bill when we had that meeting; nevertheless, that was an important opportunity to put across some of the views that have been expressed by the all-party group—views that, I make so bold as to suggest, are widely reflected by other disability organisations.
  I warmly welcome a number of provisions in the Bill, such as the extension of the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance to three and four-year-olds. I also warmly welcome increased benefits for severely disabled young people, and I acknowledge in particular the extension by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of benefit improvements for severely disabled young people up to the age of 25. I am sure that that extension is, in part, a response to the consultation exercise.

  265
  Other measures that the Government are implementing, but are not directly the concern of the Bill, have also been widely welcomed. In the consultation document, for example, the commitment to a disability income guarantee and the expansion of specialist disability services were highlighted. Those are two examples of measures that do not require primary legislation and are therefore not in the Bill.
  The all-party disablement group, and disability organisations generally, warmly welcome a great deal in the Bill, in the consultation paper and in other areas of work that the Government are undertaking. However, there are some serious areas of concern and I want to take up from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) the issue of incapacity benefit.
  I urge my colleagues in the Government to show the same understanding for the arguments made by disability organisations in relation to their worries about incapacity benefit that has been shown in relation to their representations about severe disablement allowance. The Bill proposes changes to the entitlement conditions for incapacity benefit. The principle is to be established that only those who have worked recently should be entitled to that benefit. Specifically, certain contribution conditions will have to have been satisfied in respect of the previous two years.
  The effect of that is that about 170,000 fewer people—about 10 per cent. of those currently eligible—will be eligible for incapacity benefit. Therefore the question needs to be asked: why should 170,000 people, who are unable to work because they are disabled or because they have a long-term illness, not receive an income maintenance benefit as a result of being unable to work and have to rely, if they qualify, on means-tested income support?
  The argument which has been made, and which was alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is that people have received incapacity benefit who should not have received it. Reference is frequently made to the fact that the previous Administration allegedly encouraged people to claim incapacity benefit rather than unemployment benefit. That was the first argument for this policy.
  I want to make two points. First, if the Government have evidence suggesting that people who should not receive incapacity benefit will receive it, the solution is to sort out the gateway. It is quite simple: if the problem is that we fear that what may have happened in the past will happen in the future—that people who are not entitled to incapacity benefit will somehow access it—we should deal with that through the operation of the gateway for that benefit—the all-work test or whatever replaces it. That is the sensible thing to do. I urge the Government seriously to consider the implication of denying tens of thousands of genuine claimants their right to the benefit because it is assumed that some may not be entitled to it. The solution to the problem is perfectly clear.
  Whenever it is said that in the past people who should not have accessed incapacity benefit have done so, it should be remembered that that is in the past. This Bill applies to new claimants. With the greatest respect to the Government, it is not good enough simply to look backwards and argue that that is why we should remove people from incapacity benefit, because we are dealing with new claimants.
  266
  Clause 51 provides for regulation-making powers to protect people who have not recently paid contributions because of caring responsibilities for which they receive invalid care allowance. However, some people cannot be protected in that way. They may have been looking after young children or combining child care responsibilities with part-time work. Some carers may not have claimed invalid care allowance. Others who have paid contributions for many years may become unemployed and then become disabled. Individuals with an extensive work record who subsequently experience a period of unemployment before becoming disabled will find that their contributions count for nothing.
  There has been much reference to the "something-for-nothing problem". It is rather insulting to accuse people who have fallen on hard times of wanting something for nothing when they have paid their taxes and national insurance contributions. The people whom I have in mind have a contribution record of 10, 20 or 30 years. After a period of unemployment, they then become disabled. Their problem is not something for nothing, but rather nothing for something. Although they have made their contributions, they are to be denied benefit. That will produce some absurd outcomes. For example, somebody who has worked for 10 years, is unemployed for two years and then becomes disabled is unable to get incapacity benefit, whereas someone who has been unemployed for 10 years and worked for two years can get the benefit.
  I shall try to put this tactfully—I am already in trouble anyway. This problem needs to be thought through and I desperately hope that the good sense that the Government have shown in listening to representations on the severe disability allowance will be extended to the grave concerns expressed about incapacity benefit.
  My final point concerns the level of incapacity benefit and the fact that it will depend on people's occupational and personal pensions. When the Tories cut invalidity benefit, that was the reason that they used. Billions of pounds worth of savings will be made arising from the cuts made under the previous Administration, who said that they were making those cuts because people were now more likely to have personal or occupational pensions.
  Will the Government please consider not using that argument for a second time? To do so would be unfair in the extreme. I very much hope that the Government will take on board my comments and those of the vast majority of disability organisations—indeed, every disability organisation whose submission I have read—and reconsider their proposals on incapacity benefit.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I am sure that the Bill is well intentioned and that the Government believe that it is the only course of action available to them. However, I firmly believe that it will be counter-productive to everything that they hope to achieve. It will compound rather than solve the problems. It will increase means-testing, not indirectly but directly. One has only to look at the proposals to end widow's benefit based on the contributory principle to realise that.
  Sadly, the Bill is riddled with tokenism, such as the single gateway concept, which for many young people will be a gateway into a jobless void. Make-work schemes introduced in the past have simply made bureaucracy, not work. If they have made jobs, they have made them at a price that has not been cost-effective.

  267
  The Select Committee conducted a rigorous pre-legislative inquiry into pension sharing. However, I still believe that the proposals have been barely thought out, and I oppose them. If I am fortunate enough to be selected for the Standing Committee, I shall set out my opposition in greater detail.
  There is no solution to divorce poverty. Indeed, divorce should be difficult. The only solution to divorce is some sort of judgment of Solomon which pleases no one, but that is the reality of life and divorce. We are in danger of creating a mini-CSA disaster. It is almost a cliché to say that the CSA has been a disaster. It will eventually be wound up, and these issues will be returned to the courts, whence they should never have been taken in the first place.
  We are going down an extremely dangerous route. The only solution, in broad terms, is for the parties to a marriage that breaks up to keep for themselves everything they have accumulated up to their marriage, for everything accumulated during the marriage to be split down the middle, and, if children are involved, for the court to make a payment to the mother, who usually looks after them, based on a percentage of the father's salary.
  I believe that pension sharing will not work. In my experience, the courts are used to dealing with property that is extant. Given the increasing number of short marriages, pension contributions will not have time to accrue to a significant extent. Pension sharing can work only for couples who have had long marriages and are close to retirement age. The courts will be required to interfere in events that will occur way in the future. I believe that chaos could result, and that many people will be beggared. Crumbs cannot be divided in two. If the pension hopes of divorcing couples have to be divided, the only way that can work is to use the Scottish system, which broadly divides everything accumulated during the marriage in half.
  These issues have not been adequately debated by Parliament. This is a classic case of Members on both Front Benches walking blindly into something—as they did with the CSA. Many people will reap the whirlwind in years to come.
  This is not the Bill that we should be considering. We should be discussing a Social Security (End of Dependency) Bill. We are as guilty as anyone else, and after all the bitter lessons that we have learnt in the past 10 years—my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) outlined them extremely well—we should try to reach a cross-party consensus. That may or may not be possible, but we should wind down the remorseless rise in spending of the past 50 years, which has thoroughly corrupted the working classes of this country, and ensured that people on low incomes are encouraged to work on the side while drawing maximum benefits. We have institutionalised—to quote a phrase current this week—family corruption. We should all be ashamed of that. Now we are putting a vicious new twist into the doleful process that both parties have been engaged in for the past 50 years.
  In a manic attempt to get single mothers into work, we are ensuring that they will be paid to look after any children but their own. What could be more cruel, senseless and pointless than that? The most sensible
  268
  arrangement in life—it has been around for a long time—is two people committing themselves to marriage for life, with one working and one looking after the children. That has been deliberately eroded by Governments over the past 50 years.
  It is a pity that Evelyn Waugh is dead, because we need a scathing "Vile Bodies"—type satire of the new work ethic. We are creating a ghastly 1970s Swedish perversion of the welfare state. Responsibility does not lie only with this Government: these proposals are merely the latest in a long, sad process that has continued for many years.
  The time for tinkering is running out; the time for salami slicing is over. The time for palliatives is at an end. The time has come for a radical new step to be taken. We need to examine the Department of Social Security, all its benefits and all its structures, and unpick it from the foundation stones upward. That is a task for the Opposition as they prepare for government. [Interruption.] There is no point in the present Government's being arrogant. Sooner or later they will be the ex-Government, and sooner or later our party must try to prepare for government. We cannot return to the old days of tinkering with the system, or make the mistakes made by the present Government. We cannot indulge in short-term opposition, hoping that when we take over power the problems will somehow be solved. The problems will not be solved just by our taking power; we must have our own radical vision.
  One benefit must, broadly, be retained. I refer to the basic state pension. That pension, however, should be based rigidly on the contribution principle, and should be passed to an independent body of the mutual, friendly society type. In other regards, however, radical reform is needed. At present, the Government are tinkering with the system. The introduction of stakeholder pensions, the retention of the basic state pension and the system of second pensions will merely confuse people, and I believe that the stakeholder pension will finally destroy any chance of re-creation of the occupational pension movement. Why should employers contribute, when their employees will be given rebates in return for entering the stakeholder pension system?
  I believe that, eventually, poverty relief will have to be handed back to local authorities. That may sound radical, but it has happened in the past. I do not think that we can simply re-create 400 benefit agencies. We must think in terms of local action to deal with poverty.
  As I said earlier in an intervention, there is a "third way", although it may not be possible. If we are now rejecting the idea of means-testing—as I believe we are—and if we believe that we cannot take the route advocated by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), there must be another way. We must try to build into our system, through tax arrangements, increased pressure on families to maintain children, the elderly and the disabled. That may sound radical and shocking, but it is happening increasingly throughout the world. In many American states, for example, as social security budgets run out of steam, Governments and state legislatures ensure that families are made responsible.
  Why do we assume that that is such a ridiculous idea? Why do we hand out child benefits to everyone, irrespective of income? Why do we not make parents responsible? Why do we allow young people to become

  269
  a charge on the state? Why do we not make their parents, or close family members, responsible? Is that such an impossible idea? Is it impossible to try to re-create the sense of family responsibility, the work ethic and the concept of enterprise by telling family members, "You will be responsible"?
  My time is running out. Let me just say that, if we adopted such an approach, we would re-create the system of family control and good, responsible behaviour for which the country is crying out, and which the Government are not delivering.
  8.59 pm
  Audrey Wise: Let me begin by disposing of the Tory amendment, which will not take long.
  The Tories complain that the Bill does nothing to increase job creation; that comes from the party that presided over a mass collapse of jobs. They complain about the missed opportunity for a lasting reform of social security; that comes from the party that, year after year and in Bill after Bill, made the social security system worse and more complicated. They complain about bad drafting; that comes from the party that frequently produced amendment papers that were more voluminous than the Bills to which they referred.
  Some Conservative Back Benchers now say that they never agreed with all that. Means-testing is becoming Conservative Members' target. "Targeting" was the word that they often used. They were "targeting need", so everything was good. Now, everything is bad: it is means-testing, with which they never agreed. However, I can tell those of my hon. Friends who were elected at the most recent general election that I do not remember a single dissenting Tory voice—not one—on any social security issue. If Conservative Members were worried and embarrassed about those issues, they hid their feelings very well.
  I move to the more pleasant task of welcoming the extension of mobility allowance to three and four-year-olds. I am very interested in and very concerned about children. Therefore I really do welcome the provision. Moreover, in that bit of the Bill, I do not have to say that anything is being taken back; it is an unadulterated good.
  When I think about children, I think also about their parents. I think about lone parents, because they have special problems. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that he wants people to be interviewed and given an opportunity. I am not at all averse to the phrase that he used—"How can we help you with the rest of your life?" That is great. I do not think that such an offer will require compulsion. It will have to be made at the right time, which is not necessarily immediately after a traumatic event that causes someone to need benefit—in such cases, people need benefit very quickly—but the principle of offering help is fine.
  I do not understand the need for compulsion. Particularly, I do not understand the need for compulsion for repeated interviews. If an opportunity is being offered, the word will get round. People will tell others about it, and they will flock to that opportunity. The danger of compulsion is that people think that it will lead to more compulsion. They think that it leads to compulsion to take jobs.
  270
  I believe Ministers when they say that that is not in prospect. However, I should just fire a warning shot by reminding the House that, for the duration of the second world war, when there was not only conscription but direction of labour—one not only had to work, but was told where to work—there was no compulsion on mothers with children of school age, which was then up to 14. If we could avoid such compulsion during the second world war, I do not know why we cannot do so at the beginning of the next millennium. Let us be careful. We do not want to put people off what could be a good idea by making them feel that there is a hidden threat.
  A few weeks ago, I lobbied the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), on abolition of severe disablement allowance, and have no doubt that other hon. Members lobbied similarly. I told my hon. Friend that there was absolutely no justification for a cut-off at 20, and that it would be a bit more logical if the age were 25. I am very pleased that at least that amount of sense has been seen, and that the cut-off will not be at 20, which would have been extremely damaging.
  I have nevertheless to ask the original question: why abolish the allowance at all? The benefit started life as non-contributory invalidity benefit, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government. There was a need then for a non-contributory invalidity benefit, and there still is. Although I am glad that the effect of abolition of the benefit and its replacement with incapacity benefit will be greatly to increase benefit for the youngest, so that they will be better off—that is great; I am very pleased about it—I do not see the reason for preventing anyone, even those who are over 25, from claiming the benefit if they have need to qualify for it.
  Let us not forget that we are talking about severe disablement. The Government apparently think that about 16,000 people—or even fewer, as now only those aged up to 25 will be able to claim—are able to claim severe disablement allowance, and that 70 per cent. of those will qualify for income support. The average loss for the other 30 per cent., whose other income disqualifies them from income support, will be £50 a week. That will apply to fewer people, but what counts is not just the other income of the person in question, but other income in the household. The disabled person might have no income, relying on that of a husband or partner. Taking that £50 a week will be a robbery of dignity as well as of cash. Both are important.
  The Government predicted savings of £80 million a year in the long run. That figure will be lower now, so why not go the whole hog and accept that the previous Labour Government were right to take a great leap forward in recognising the need for a non-contributory invalidity benefit? Let us keep it available to all ages. The proposal discriminates particularly against women, because there is an assumption that if they are over 25 they will have had an opportunity to build a contributions record. That may not be the case and it is more likely not to be so for women. It would be untrue for anyone who had worked only part-time and remained under the contributions threshold, which is now about £80 a week. Many people go out to work but do not earn more than the threshold, so they never build a contributions record. I appeal to the Government to rethink the proposals.

  271
  Some of my hon. Friends have said that they are worried about changes in incapacity benefit. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) said about the dangers of the proposed changes to the contribution conditions. People may well be unable to build or keep a contribution record. If they go sick, they may be able to work only part-time. Their entitlement will be killed. Some will do it, just as they rest before going for medical examinations, then have to be in bed for the next month. People are generally honest. They try. If their contribution record goes out the window because they are not able to work for long enough or for high enough wages, they suffer. That disincentive to work is against all the Government's stated aims.
  Then there is the issue of incapacity benefit being a top-up for early retirement. Age Concern has pointed out that people have to qualify. They cannot just go along and say that they fancy having incapacity benefit. If they qualify, they should have it.
  I have talked about non-contributory benefits. Let us remember that the essence of contributory benefits is that they are not means-tested. How can Secretaries of State refer to the means of the individual as an excuse for getting rid of people's entitlement to a non-means-tested benefit?
  Mr. Flight: Hear, hear.
  Audrey Wise: I can do without "hear, hears" from the Conservatives, thank you very much. The hon. Gentleman is several years too late.
  Mr. David Winnick: Take my "hear, hears", then.
  Audrey Wise: I shall take my hon. Friend's.
  The Government are urging people to make private provision. The Secretary of State will then say, "Well, you are going to be well off. You're going to have £9,000 a year. Why should you get state benefit?" People should get state benefit because they have paid for it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: Before I come to the stakeholder measures in the Bill, I should like to make some brief points on the other territories covered. As others have pointed out, the reneging on the widow's pension arrangements is outrageous. When I spoke to a group of constituents about the issue recently, they were horrified. There has been pension mis-selling in the private sector, but the proposal is downright robbery in the state sector.
  I am still not clear what the gateway interviews are all about. Are they about helping people, or are they meant to be a real discipline? My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) asked the Secretary of State whether people would not receive social security benefits if they did not turn up, but the Secretary of State declined to answer and ducked the issue. Bluntly, there is no point in issuing threats unless they are for real. If, on the
  272
  other hand, the interviews are about genuinely helping people, they need to be approached in a much more helpful fashion.
  Clause 55—which has not been mentioned—gives the Government considerable scope for regulation making in relation to attendance allowance. My fear is that the clause is there to enable the Government, in due course, to move to means-testing attendance allowance, along with everything else.
  On stakeholder pensions, I am concerned that the opportunity for a real and sensible rationalisation and reform of pensions has been missed. America has a simple approach to pensions—one is either a member of an occupational scheme or a 401K, where employers are incentivised to provide 401K schemes. People understand what is on offer—it is very easy. In the UK, we are adding two further complications: the stakeholder, on top of personal and occupational schemes; and the LISA, which can apparently be used as a method of managing money by any one of additional voluntary contributions, or occupational, personal or stakeholder schemes. However, it is not clear how one will plug in from one to another, or whether the LISA is merely a money-management vehicle or—in terms of retirement—whether one can use a draw-down mechanism for what has been accumulated in the LISA.
  The main objective of the stakeholder pension surely must be to address pension fund provision by the self-employed. On the Government's own figures, there are 10 million people with occupational schemes, 10.5 million with personal schemes and 7 million in SERPS. There is a work force of working age of about 35 million, with the maximum potentially in work of 31 million. Beyond the 27.5 million who are already provided for, those who are not, overwhelmingly, are the self-employed—the issue of carers being a separate territory.
  I cannot see what will make the self-employed take out stakeholder pensions. For those who are in paid employment, there is no choice. They either accept SERPS2, or they take out a stakeholder scheme, if they are not already in a personal or occupational scheme. For the self-employed, there is no proposal that they should be forced to choose between the SERPS2 replacement or a stakeholder scheme. The Government may be hoping that they will be so attracted by stakeholder schemes that they will take one out automatically. I fear that this will be in vain.
  The state guaranteed minimum pension now offers a pension top-up that will be approximately equal to that which the average wage earner will accrue within a stakeholder scheme, assuming capital build-up of about £85,000. The incentive for the self-employed individual to take out a stakeholder scheme is dramatically negative. He would be saving £85,000 for absolutely nothing, and would end up in the same position, free, under the state pension guarantee. Yet that is the one key area where there is cross-party agreement: that we, as a country, want as many people as possible to provide for their pensions privately.
  My next objection is the limit of £3,600. What is that all about? Many people using stakeholder schemes will find, in relation to their salaries, that that is inadequate—and yet, apparently, they cannot then do a personal pension on top. They may find themselves accumulating

  273
  much less than 10, 12 or even 15 per cent. of income. Why not make the limit on stakeholders £3,600 or 15 per cent. of income? My fear is that the £3,600 is a marker for that sum being the maximum that anyone will be able to put into a pension scheme on a tax-exempt basis. In a couple of years, it will be asked why one pension scheme should allow more tax advantages than another.
  I genuinely fear that we will have death by a thousand cuts for occupational schemes. Stakeholder schemes will become irresistible for new businesses, especially for covering middle management. There may still be top hat schemes for the top executives, but there is a danger of pension provision for the people in the middle worsening.
  The proposals were supposed to help job mobility, but one cannot continue a stakeholder scheme if one moves to new employment where there is an occupational scheme. That seems contrary to the objectives.
  The industry has not been given nearly enough detail to get the products up and running. It is keen to co-operate, but there will be a planning blight and the Bill's objectives will not be met by 2001 unless there is a lot more detail. I believe that, as with 401K schemes, people should be able to choose their stakeholder pension; but if the company provides the stakeholder pension, it chooses the manager and the product.
  The question of annuities has been completely ignored. The route down which we are going will vastly increase money-purchase pension schemes. Are the Government content that the annuity market will provide adequately? There are overwhelming arguments for scrapping the compulsion to buy an annuity at 75, and reforming the draw-down rules. In the 226 schemes—personal pension schemes—one has to buy an annuity at the time of retirement.
  There are some awkward tax rules in relation to equity-linked annuities, whereby, if there is success and the with-profits results exceed the return limit by 3 per cent. in a year, one could easily die and lose some of the net accumulation, after providing from the annuity profit for bad years as well as good. That puts people off using with-profits annuities.
  I do not see how the country will cope with the massive proliferation of pension choices without some form of central register for individuals' pension provisions. People will need to discover what cover they have, and it will be needed to provide advice as economically as possible.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said, there has been some progress with stakeholders; and I am a great supporter of the LISA as a way of managing money; but the biggest change that the Government have introduced for pensions is the abolition of advance corporation tax recovery, thereby robbing pension funds of £5 billion a year. They have endeavoured to excuse that by saying that it was a process for the rational reform of company taxation.
  Many will have seen in the newspapers that Unilever has paid a massive dividend because it could not find any investment that met its investment criteria. It was in any case always old-fashioned nonsense to argue that a tax bias in favour of retention would lead companies to reinvest, giving pension funds the benefit of capital appreciation. The—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. David Lock.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. David Lock: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate and I wish to concentrate my brief remarks on the issue of stakeholder pensions. Occupational pension funds are one of the great successes of the past 50 years, and I am pleased to serve as the secretary of the parliamentary all-party occupational pensions group. They are the principal reason why millions of pensioners have a reasonable living in their third age, enjoying retirement and living life to the full in their 60s, 70s and 80s. Anyone who thinks that an active life is over when one finishes work should look no further than the Lords and Commons rugby team, whose scrum-half last weekend was aged 69.
  However, for many, an occupational pension was never an option when they were working. Today's poor pensioners are, by and large, those who never joined an occupational scheme or were not in a position to make alternative provision for their retirement. They are the 35 per cent. of employees whose employers did not have a pension scheme, those who moved from job to job, the self-employed and those in a number of other categories. Those pensioners are scraping by on a low income. I am delighted that, with the minimum pensioner income guarantee, free eye tests, winter fuel payments, concessionary travel and other measures, the Government are doing so much to target help on those pensioners who need it most. But state help is no substitute for self-reliance. Being entitled to benefits is not the same as having the confidence of one's own income. Our challenge is to ensure that those who are in work today do not become tomorrow's poor pensioners.
  Confidence is essential for the pensions market to work, because we invest today and must have confidence that benefits will accrue in many years' time. The pensions industry in Britain has suffered a massive blow to confidence for those who are outside the occupational pension world, as a result of the crass mismanagement and under-regulation of the industry in the 1980s. The history of pensions this-selling and its 2.5 million victims has been told on numerous occasions, and I shall not repeat it. However, there is an equal, if not larger, problem with personal pensions, to which the previous Government and the industry should have faced up. It is the issue of charges. I can do no better than quote the authors of the Pension Provision Group, who said:
  "Of the main forms of second-tier pension provision, personal pensions have the highest costs, and their charging structure makes them unsuitable for lower paid people who have a high risk of not being able to keep up the payments in the longer term".
  There are massive introductory commissions and start-up charges. One third of people who buy a personal pension abandon contributing in the first three years and 40 per cent. do so within four years. That means that vast sums are being contributed to the financial services market with no benefit returning to the investors.
  The Bill paves the way for the creation of a new vehicle that will restore confidence to the pension marketplace for those who do not have the benefit of an occupational scheme but can none the less save for their retirement through, of course, stakeholder pensions. A number of issues arise from the proposals for stakeholder pensions. The first is that of trust. No financial institution will be able to start its own stakeholder pension scheme to generate profits for its shareholders rather than benefits for the scheme members. I trust that regulations will

  275
  ensure that the nature of all stakeholder pension schemes will be explained in plain English. Members need a clear annual statement stating exactly how much has been paid; the value of the fund to date; and what that would produce in retirement benefits.
  I also look to my hon. Friend the Minister for an assurance that regulations will ensure that charges will be strictly capped, so that there is a fair balance between the costs that fall on the scheme generally and those that fall on the individual policyholder. If an individual contributes for three years or more, he should be able to point to that part of the annual statement that shows the benefit that he or she has accrued. That will be the incentive to carry on contributing.
  The second issue is that of confidence. Stakeholder pensions will inspire confidence because they will be run as non-profit-making trusts, rather than designed to benefit external shareholders. The stakeholders can know that the funding to which they are subscribing will be focused on them, designed to give them benefits and not simply used—as many personal pensions have been—as a vehicle for somebody else to cream off the profits.
  Who will be the trustees for the new trusts? I am delighted that many organisations have expressed an interest in setting up stakeholder pension funds. Trade unions, chambers of commerce, employers' organisations and many other bodies are in a position to offer stakeholder pensions to the people within their influence. I especially welcome the work of trade unions. Many trade union members have earnings that fall between £9,000 and £20,000. They no longer work predominantly for the public sector or for large employers: many work for smaller employers or move from job to job. Union members look to their union to look after their interests at work. It is logical that they should also look to the union to offer them the opportunity to invest in a pension for when they finish work.
  Thirdly, stakeholder pensions will catch people early. When they are up and running, they will encourage employees to become involved in a pension fund when retirement is the last thing on their minds. I appreciate that retirement from work may seem a distant prospect for some hon. Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) and for Watford (Ms Ward). I have just emerged from the halcyon days of youth, and can recall what a distant prospect reaching the age of 60 once seemed. However, the reality is that, if it is left solely to young people to plan and pay for pension provision at the crucial time, they will put off doing it until they "get around to it". There is always a better use for money today than saving for a distant tomorrow.
  Yet, the longer money is in a savings scheme, especially a pension fund, the more it grows. It earns interest, and interest on that interest. As many people have found to their cost, they get much less if they start saving late in life.
  Clause 3 imposes a duty on employers who do not operate an occupational pension scheme to select which stakeholder pension scheme should apply to their employees. That is a modest duty and employers should not be able to sidestep it. After consultation, they will be obliged to designate one or more schemes to their employees. That will be of great benefit to the 35 per cent. of employees without an occupational pension.
  276
  Finally, I strongly support the growth of ethical investment funds, which have been a remarkable and impressive development in recent years. Many people ask about the type of businesses in which their savings are invested, and they are right to do so. I would not want to invest in a tobacco firm, or in a company that improperly exploited people and natural resources in developing countries. Other people feel strongly about companies that carry out animal experiments. However, because pension savings are pooled, investors lose the right to control how their money is used.
  Stakeholder pensions will provide substantial opportunities for the Churches, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other organisations to create pensions with clear and transparent ethical investment strategies. The record of the ethical investment trusts to date has been most impressive, and that reflects their professionalism and the high-risk nature of the less ethical activities in which some companies get involved. Those who did not invest in the American tobacco companies are not now paying the price of settling tobacco litigation in United States.
  Stakeholder pensions are a significant and welcome investment. They will offer a non-profit-making, safe and convenient investment vehicle to provide secure futures for the millions of people for whom occupational pensions are not available. They will provide the same benefits for tomorrow's pensioners that people with occupational pensions enjoy today. I hope that all hon. Members recognise our collective interest in persuading everyone who can to save for their retirement. The Bill, by making provisions for stakeholder pensions, takes a significant step in that direction.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: We have had a thoughtful and well-informed debate, to which many members of the Select Committee on Social Security have contributed. It has been an unusually original debate, and some very original remarks were made.
  What has been most notable about the debate is the strange absence of party politics. People listening to the debate, if they were not in the Chamber or watching on television, would have had difficulty in guessing from which side a contribution came. However, they would have had no difficulty in grasping that most speakers have criticised the Government. Very few had a good word to say about the Bill.
  Perhaps even more surprising is that Liberal Democrat Members, who are normally so subservient to, and so glamorised by, the Administration, decided to stand up and be counted. That may, perhaps, make the Government's business managers pause, at least for a second or two.
  We have heard powerful speeches, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who spoke bravely and well in acknowledging that not all was as it should have been under the previous Administration. Serious mistakes were made then, but my hon. Friend pointed out the extraordinary irony that a Labour Government who won power by claiming to offer a different deal to the British people have in fact simply aggravated the position that they inherited. The Government have gone much further down the bad road of means-testing, and they have begun to attack the national insurance system in a way that their predecessor would not have dreamed of doing.

  277
  We heard penetrating and expert contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), each of whom has long-standing professional expertise in the field. The House always listens to my two hon. Friends with great attention, and it did so again tonight. I hope that we shall defeat this extremely bad Bill in half an hour or so, but, if we cannot succeed in doing so, I hope that we shall hear from my hon. Friends again in the Standing Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) also gave us an effective indictment of the Bill and of the impact of means-testing on saving. She made a slightly different calculation from that which I made in the Chamber a couple of weeks ago, and she came up with the figure of £100,000, below which anyone who could not save that much would be better off not saving at all. To save some lesser sum would only deprive that benighted individual of the thousands of pounds of means-tested benefits to which he or she would otherwise be entitled.
  My hon. Friend's £100,000 is somewhat more than the £80,000 that I calculated, but both figures are far too high. It is appalling to think of people on low or modest incomes saving all their lives for nothing at all. It is appalling that their sacrifices should be mocked and made as nothing by the new Labour Government. As each month passes, and the Government go further down the road of means-testing, the figure will rise higher and higher. It will continue to rise throughout this Parliament unless the Government see the error of their ways, and there has been little sign of that.
  We heard a particularly thoughtful and frank speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) who did not spare us in the language that he used. He referred to the corruption of family life, and to a deliberate increase of dependency in our culture. Such things need to be said because the House is the one place in which the wiles, deceptions and cover-ups of the Government may be revealed. Only here can we get away from the clever press spin to which we have become so used over the past two years. It is here that we can get behind that spin to see the reality of what is happening.
  Perhaps the most shattering indictments of the course on which the Government have embarked have come from their own side of the House. They came from a range of right hon. and hon. Members who carry great respect in the House. As all hon. Members here would bear out, they have had a record since they have been in the House of taking a close interest in social security and welfare. They have fine personal records of compassion and concern for the disadvantaged. I think in particular of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Members for Preston (Audrey Wise) and for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), but they were joined by other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who always speaks sincerely, even if it is—[Interruption.] I was about to say that it is relatively unusual that I find myself agreeing with the hon. Gentleman, but I certainly did so tonight.
  After all that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you might think that we not only had a good debate, which we certainly have had, but that the House has had a good day. In fact, the House has had not a good but a very bad day. We have had a shameful day and I trust that the Government will not try on the House another day like this.
  278
  First, the Government came to the House with three distinct Bills wrapped up in one: one on stakeholder pensions, one on pension sharing and one on their disreputable, so-called welfare reform proposals, which are designed to take money from the bereaved and widows, some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Why did they wrap those three distinct Bills in one? I will give way to any right hon. or hon. Member on the Treasury Bench who wants to intervene to offer another explanation of that extraordinary procedure. The Government thought that, by wrapping all those measures together, they could confuse the public debate and bury some of the most unpleasant proposals, which would escape the scrutiny that they so obviously require.
  If that were not enough, the Government have compounded the error. Someone—no doubt, Mr. Alastair Campbell, once again—decided to be even cleverer than wrapping up three distinct Bills in one document. He decided—I say "he" advisedly, because those on the Treasury Bench are mere puppets in his hands—that he could bamboozle the British public even more effectively, first, by ensuring that the Bill, which is actually three Bills, was put before the House on the day on which we have a statement on the euro, when two hours would be taken out of the time that we might otherwise have to debate it. Secondly, he calculated that tomorrow's headlines would concentrate on the euro, so some extremely unpleasant realities for millions of people could be hidden from public view.
  Mr. Chris Pond rose
  Mr. Davies: I will give way in a moment, but, first, the hon. Gentleman will have to listen to the third reason—in some ways the most disgraceful—why the procedure tonight has been extremely disreputable. It is that the stakeholder pension Bill should not have been debated in the House today either as a separate Bill or wrapped up with a lot of extraneous legislative proposals because the consultation period set out in the Green Paper that the House received in December does not end until 31 March. If the public cannot have confidence that the Government will not formulate final proposals in the form of a Bill until a consultation period has come to an end and they have listened to what those who want to comment on the proposals have to say, they will cease to respond to consultation.
  By treating Parliament and the public with such contempt, the Government are ensuring that the whole principle of consultation is devalued. By doing so, Ministers have done a terribly bad day's work, not only for their Department and for the people who depend on the national insurance system, but for the whole cause of good, effective Government—Government who listen to people and who take account of realities before drafting Bills.
  The Government have been so carried away by their vast majority, which they think will allow any amount of ill-considered rubbish through the Chamber, that they have decided that they can contemptuously discard the consultation process.
  Mr. Pond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and apologise for having caught him in mid-flow. Does he recognise that one of the reasons why Labour has such a large majority is that the Conservatives

  279
  in government caused such havoc for the poorest and most vulnerable section of our community that people lost all faith in their actions? May I also say to him—he will like this bit, I promise—that I was rather impressed that, like us, he sat through sitting after sitting of the Social Security Committee when it considered pension sharing on divorce so as to find out what it was all about? Does he not recognise that the reason why it is legitimate to put the large section dealing with pension sharing on divorce in the Bill is that there has been important scrutiny in the Select Committee, whose debates will be important in the Standing Committee?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is obviously dissatisfied that he failed to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and so was unable to make a speech. What an extraordinarily perverse and idiotic line to take—that, because the previous Government made a few mistakes, it is a good idea for the Labour Government to make a load of colossal new mistakes in the same vein.
  There is a great deal wrong with the Bill. On the subject of pension sharing, we heard some interesting suggestions on how to deal with flaws in the Bill from the hon. Member for Croydon, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. On stakeholder pensions, it is clear that a range of essential issues have not been thought through—the burden on employers, the heavy management and administration structure of the trust and, in particular, the utter confusion created by the Treasury having put forward its rival set of proposals for lifelong individual savings accounts. People will now need to take expensive and complex advice if they are to sort out the confusion that the Government have gratuitously created.
  As I have said before, perhaps the most fundamental problem with stakeholder pensions is that, although they are supposedly designed for the less well-paid and the lowest-paid members of our society, the Government are rapidly making it clear that the less well-paid should not be investing or saving at all, whether in a pension or by any other means. That is the great tragedy of what the Government are doing to our society and to our future as a nation.
  On welfare reform—so-called reform—what the Government are doing is quite unspeakable: it is a brutal attack on the most vulnerable. Suggestions have been made tonight about the line that genuine welfare reform might take—I look again at the hon. Member for Croydon, North. Far from adopting such a course, the Government, under the orders of the Treasury or perhaps of Mr. Campbell, have not been ashamed to go for the softest targets, the people who can least easily defend themselves—widows and those who qualify for incapacity benefit. They cannot get much lower than that.
  So complete has the subjugation of the Department of Social Security to the Treasury become that the Ministers now sitting on the Treasury Bench, who only got there after a couple of reshuffles which were needed because their predecessors were not quite as malleable, are not prepared to do anything to stand up for the national insurance system, which ought to be their sacred charge. As we have seen clearly tonight, the disquiet among Opposition Members providing the most graphic testimony, the Government no longer have any principle that cannot be subverted for the sake of a quick political
  280
  fix, or under instructions from the Treasury. There is no promise that will not be broken and no person so vulnerable that he or she will be protected from Treasury savings.
  The Government have debauched their principles and devalued a great national institution—the national insurance system, which was the achievement of many generations in this century and of all political parties. They have sullied the legacy of their own forebears and betrayed the trust of their own supporters. Most unforgivable of all, they have simply defrauded millions of British working people who have contributed all their lives for the national insurance benefits that they are now to be cynically denied.
  9.44 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): This has been a lively and interesting debate. We have enjoyed the rumbustious speech made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies); it was somewhat unguided and mistargeted, but no less enjoyable for all that.
  I am pleased that so many hon. Members wanted to take part in the debate, recognising as they do the central importance of the task that the Bill takes on. The Government have set out to build a new Britain that will be modern and decent—and a modern and decent Britain needs a modern and decent welfare system. That is what the Bill is for.
  There can be no dispute that the system needs reforming. A constituent—a young Asian man in his late 20s—came to see me at my surgery last summer. Four years ago, he was working at one of the big London sorting offices. While off work one day, he was in a car accident and he was left with only partial use of his left arm. He was forced to give up his job, awarded a low rate of disability benefit and has not worked since. He told me that he wanted to work again, but he obviously had no confidence at all that he would be able to do so. He is married with a young child and another on the way, and he has been deeply worried about how he can bring up his family decently on the low income that he now receives.
  However, there is no reason why my constituent could not work: he is a bright young man, he is right-handed and his right arm is fine. What he needs—and what he should have been offered four years ago—is some serious help to plan a return to work. Better still, he should have received help so that he did not have to leave work in the first place. That young man has been badly let down by our benefit system, and it is the system that needs to change. Too much of what the system does is out of date, or is done in an out-of-date way. The result is that far too many people are badly off when they do not need to be.
  The Bill marks the start of a process of vital reform: building a system that delivers for people and that provides help to people, instead of trapping them, by applying the success that we have seen in the new deal right across our welfare system. When the Bill was published, I heard a radio interviewer on "Good Morning Wales" talking to a lone parent, Bithig Davies, about work-focused interviews for making and renewing benefit claims. She did not denounce them, but said:
  "It's nice to think that somebody actually cares about single parents who want to go back to work … In my case it didn't happen. Nobody bothered at all."

  281
  That is the real indictment of the system that we have inherited: it has not bothered. By building on the new deals already in place, the Bill will at last start to put things right. A modern and decent Britain needs modern and decent welfare that is active, people centred, efficient and robust on fraud and that exploits new technology to the full in delivery. That is the kind of welfare system that we want.
  We want to rebuild the system around work and security: work for those who can and security for those who cannot. It must be driven by principle, recognising that, for those who are able to, having a job is the best way for people to realise their full potential.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend has quoted a young woman from a radio interview. I am sure that most people support the gateway and the concept of the individual, tailored approach. However, did the Government's consultation not reveal that the majority of the 1,000 or so respondents felt that job interviews should not be compulsory?
  Mr. Timms: Our proposals for single parents have been welcomed extremely widely, and the young woman whom I quoted from that radio interview speaks for the overwhelming majority of lone parents.
  I turn to some of the points raised in this excellent debate. I shall comment first on the intervention that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe) made at the beginning of the debate about the effect of the Bill in Northern Ireland. The majority of the Bill's clauses—with the exception of those measures set out in clause 74—will not apply automatically in Northern Ireland, which has a separate system. It is anticipated that Northern Ireland will legislate to retain parity with the rest of the United Kingdom, but that will be achieved when the Assembly assumes its functions in March or April this year via a new fast-track procedure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) rightly drew attention to the scale of the changes that have occurred in the past 50 years since the present welfare system was defined. He was absolutely right to state that disabled people, in particular, are no longer willing to be written off by the system, as has occurred in the past. Disabled people have ambitions, and the Government want those ambitions to be fulfilled.
  The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Bendel) began an interesting contribution by denouncing the Tory party's amendment and then announced that he intended to lead his hon. Friends into the Lobby to vote for it. I lost the logic of his argument. Many people who voted for the Liberal Democrats at the general election will be surprised to learn this evening that Liberal Democrat Members are voting with the Tories on welfare.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), in a characteristically thoughtful speech, welcomed the announcement that people who remain in education and become incapacitated before the age of 25—rather than 20, as the Bill states—will be passported on to incapacity benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) particularly welcomed that measure and the change to accessibility to the mobility component of disability living allowance for young children.
  I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead in his interpretation of the effect of the changes that we are making. The Bill revitalizes
  282
  contributory benefits by, for example, extending bereavement benefits to widowers. That is a new contributory benefit for people who have not had access to one in the past. We are proposing new contributory rights through the state second pension, which is a new, 100 per cent. contributory scheme to be introduced by the Government.
  Mr. Forsythe: Is the Minister telling the House that the Bill will not be introduced in Northern Ireland, except by the Assembly? If we suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is no agreement and no Assembly, are the Government saying that the legislation will never be introduced in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Timms: I have every confidence that the Assembly will take up its powers within the next couple of months and introduce the necessary legislation, but the Bill's provisions will not automatically take effect in Northern Ireland.
  On the future of the contributory principle, I point out that nobody starting from scratch would invent the system that we have today, with all its complexities. We are improving and rationalising contributory benefits for people of working age which account for only 20 per cent. of national insurance benefit spending. We make no apology for concentrating extra help on those who need it most. That is why we are giving young disabled people a new entitlement to incapacity benefit.
  We remain firmly committed to a strong contributory basis for retirement benefits, including the basic state pension, which will not be means-tested, as well as the new state second pension. That is not the death of a principle; it is the birth of a strengthened and modernised benefit system.
  In response to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, I point out that, since last October, when we greatly extended the linking rules for incapacity benefit from eight to 52 weeks, disabled people have been assured that they can try work for short periods with a guarantee that they will be able to return to the same level of benefit if they should fall ill again. That rule also means that they will be able to meet the new contribution test; so, rather than making it harder for people to try work, we are making it easier, and it is absolutely right that we should do so.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) made several points about incapacity benefit. Those concerns have also been raised by members of the disability benefits forum and others. The changes that we are making are right. After the war, fewer than one third of people in work had access to a non-state pension. Today, about three quarters do. It is right to reflect that change in the rules for incapacity benefit, as we are doing, and to cut the incentive to retire early that the old system provides.
  It is right also to ensure that incapacity benefit is an insurance benefit for people who become incapacitated while working, as was intended. The system should not engender in people who are unemployed for a long time an aspiration to become sick. We want a system that encourages people to aspire to work.
  The changes are right, and they give us the opportunity to improve the help that we provide for the people who need it the most. I would say to the hon. Member

  283
  for Newbury in particular that it will not do, even given the notoriety of the Liberal Democrat party on this score, to applaud the extra spending in the Bill while deprecating the measures that make those improvements possible.
  I had hoped to be able to respond to some of the interesting points that have been made about stakeholder pensions. Rightly, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) commented that they have been welcomed by the industry. In a well-informed speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) spoke about the widespread interest in providing stakeholder pensions; I have no doubt that they will be very successful.
  In one of the most effective speeches of the evening, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) spoke about the way in which the Employment Service had been transformed by the new deal; she was absolutely right. The Tory idea of social security was as a giro factory. The claimant went in and spoke to someone sitting behind a glass screen he or she they had never seen before and would never speak to again. If the claimant could persuade the system that he or she was entitled to benefit, it started to send giros; beyond that, it took no further interest in the person. And the cheaper the system was to operate, the better—never mind the consequences.
  Our view is completely different. We want a social security system that actively helps people, not one that just sends out giros. We want a system built around not, "How little can we get away with paying you?" but "How could we best help you plan a move to independence?" We want to invest in new technology, not to cut staff but to enable our staff to provide people with the help that they need and have not been able to obtain in the past.
  As has been said, the job of the Employment Service used to be to minimise the amount of jobseeker's allowance that it paid out. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a general buzz of conversation. Hon. Members must listen to the Minister responding to the debate.
  Mr. Timms: The staff were encouraged to think of themselves as benefits police, with targets set accordingly. However, with the new deal—I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is on the Front Bench with me tonight—they have a completely different task. For the first time, as a result of the windfall tax, they have the resources to do the job that most people join the Employment Service to do: helping people into work. The youngsters who have been on the receiving end of the new deal, who, after the past 18 years, have every reason to be sceptical about the whole thing, are saying that the new deal works, and that the Employment Service has been transformed into an ally.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities tells of one unemployed young man visiting his local employment office for his new deal interview. As the interview went on, it dawned on the adviser that the young man had basic skills problems with reading and writing, which were preventing him from finding a job. He wondered how, tactfully, to raise that issue without appearing to be insulting, and eventually he brought into the conversation the fact that the local
  284
  college was offering a basic skills course and asked whether the young man would be willing to check it out. The young man reflected for a few moments and said, "I will go if you will come with me." So the adviser went with him. The young man signed up for the course and is now on the way to finding a job. That is how the welfare system should work, and that is the transformation, throughout the welfare system, that is heralded by the Bill.
  Among disabled people, there are about a million not currently in work who would like to be if they could. We want to help them to fulfil their ambitions. We also recognise that, for others, work is not a realistic option. A modern and decent society accepts that, and must ensure that everyone, including those unable to work, shares in the prosperity and security of the rest.
  The Bill starts the process of building the modern and decent welfare system that Britain desperately needs. We shall no longer abandon people simply to receiving handouts, when their position could be transformed by active help and support. The Bill is a vital step forward; I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 336.

  Division No. 72]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Cran, James

  Amess, David

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Baker, Norman

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Ballard, Jackie

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Evans, Nigel

  Bercow, John

  Faber, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fabricant, Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fallon, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Boswell, Tim

  Flight, Howard

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brady, Graham

  Fraser, Christopher

  Brake, Tom

  Gale, Roger

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Garnier, Edward

  Brazier, Julian

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Breed, Colin

  Gill, Christopher

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gray, James

  Burnett, John

  Green, Damian

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Grieve, Dominic

  Butterfill, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Hammond, Philip

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Chidgey, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Chope, Christopher

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Hayes, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Heald, Oliver

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Collins, Tim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cotter, Brian

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  285

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Ruffley, David

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Keetch, Paul

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Key, Robert

  Shepherd, Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

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

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lansley, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lidington, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stunell, Andrew

  Livsey, Richard

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Syms, Robert

  Loughton, Tim

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Townend, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tredinnick, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Trend, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tyler, Paul

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Viggers, Peter

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Walter, Robert

  Moore, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Webb, Steve

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Norman, Archie

  Whittingdale, John

  Oaten, Mark

  Wilkinson, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Willetts, David

  Willis, Phil

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Page, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Paice, James

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Paterson, Owen

  Woodward, Shaun

  Pickles, Eric

  Yeo, Tim

  Prior, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Randall, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rendel, David

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blackman, Liz

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ainger, Nick

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov?try NE)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Alexander, Douglas

  Boateng, Paul

  Allen, Graham

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Browne, Desmond

  Austin, John

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Banks, Tony

  Burden, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Burgon, Colin

  Barron, Kevin

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Battle, John

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Beggs, Roy

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cann, Jamie

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Casale, Roger

  Benton, Joe

  Caton, Martin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cawsey, Ian

  Berry, Roger

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Best, Harold

  Chaytor, David

  Betts, Clive

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  286

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gunnell, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heppell, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cohen, Harry

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Coleman, Iain

  Hill, Keith

  Connarty, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cooper, Yvette

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hope, Phil

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cox, Tom

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov?try S)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hurst, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hutton, John

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Darvill, Keith

  Illsley, Eric

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Denham, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Dowd, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Drew, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Edwards, Huw

  Kidney, David

  Efford, Clive

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Etherington, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Laxton, Bob

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lepper, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  Levitt, Tom

  Flint, Caroline

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Flynn, Paul

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Follett, Barbara

  Linton, Martin

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Lock, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McAllion, John

  Foulkes, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fyfe, Maria

  McCabe, Steve

  Galloway, George

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gapes, Mike

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Gardiner, Barry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonnell, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  McLeish, Henry

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McNulty, Tony

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McWalter, Tony

  287

  McWilliam, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marek, Dr John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Singh, Marsha

  Maxton, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Snape, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Soley, Clive

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Morley, Elliot

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stevenson, George

  Mountford, Kali

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mudie, George

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mullin, Chris

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stott, Roger

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Norris, Dan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Timms, Stephen

  Pendry, Tom

  Touhig, Don

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Trickett, Jon

  Pickthall, Colin

  Truswell, Paul

  Pike, Peter L

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pond, Chris

  Turner Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Pope, Greg

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pound, Stephen

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Vaz, Keith

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Watts, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Welsh, Andrew

  Primarolo, Dawn

  White, Brian

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Purchase, Ken

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Wills, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wise, Audrey

  Rogers, Allan

  Woolas, Phil

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wray, James

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Salmond, Alex

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Salter, Martin

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mr. David Hanson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 180.

  Division No. 73]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Ainger, Nick

  Cummings, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Allen, Graham

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Darvill, Keith

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davidson, Ian

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Austin, John

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Banks, Tony

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Barnes, Harry

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Barron, Kevin

  Dawson, Hilton

  Battle, John

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bayley, Hugh

  Denham, John

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dobbin, Jim

  Beggs, Roy

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Doran, Frank

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dowd, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Drew, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Berry, Roger

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Best, Harold

  Edwards, Huw

  Betts, Clive

  Efford, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blizzard, Bob

  Etherington, Bill

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Boateng, Paul

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Flynn, Paul

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Follett, Barbara

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Burden, Richard

  Foulkes, George

  Burgon, Colin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Galloway, George

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Cann, Jamie

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Caplin, Ivor

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Casale, Roger

  Goggins, Paul

  Caton, Martin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gunnell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hill, Keith

  Cohen, Harry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hope, Phil

  Corbett, Robin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  289

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mountford, Kali

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hurst, Alan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hutton, John

  Norris, Dan

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Olner, Bill

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jamieson, David

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jenkins, Brian

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pearson, Ian

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pendry, Tom

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pond, Chris

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pope, Greg

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kidney, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Laxton, Bob

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lepper, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Levitt, Tom

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Linton, Martin

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lock, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Love, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  McAllion, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Salter, Martin

  McCabe, Steve

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McDonnell, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Singh, Marsha

  McIsaac, Shona

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McNulty, Tony

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McWilliam, John

  Snape, Peter

  Mallaber, Judy

  Soley, Clive

  Marek, Dr John

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Stevenson, George

  Maxton, John

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mitchell, Austin

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Timms, Stephen

  290

  Touhig, Don

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Trickett, Jon

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Truswell, Paul

  Wills, Michael

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wise, Audrey

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Woolas, Phil

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wray, James

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wright Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Vaz, Keith

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watts, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  White, Brian

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Mr. David Hanson.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Amess, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Fraser, Christopher

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Gale, Roger

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Garnier, Edward

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Baker, Norman

  Gill, Christopher

  Ballard, Jackie

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bercow, John

  Gorrie, Donald

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gray, James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Green, Damian

  Body, Sir Richard

  Greenway, John

  Boswell, Tim

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Brady, Graham

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Brake, Tom

  Hammond, Philip

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Brazier, Julian

  Harvey, Nick

  Breed, Colin

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hayes, John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Heald, Oliver

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Burnett, John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Burns, Simon

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Burstow, Paul

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Butterfill, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chidgey, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Clappison, James

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Keetch, Paul

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Key, Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Collins, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Colvin, Michael

  Lansley, Andrew

  Cotter, Brian

  Leigh, Edward

  Cran, James

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lidington, David

  Dafis, Cynog

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Livsey, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Loughton, Tim

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Luff, Peter

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Evans, Nigel

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Faber, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Madel, Sir David

  Fallon, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Feam, Ronnie

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  291

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Stunell, Andrew

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Swayne, Desmond

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Syms, Robert

  Moore, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Norman, Archie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Oaten, Mark

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Öpik, Lembit

  Townend, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Page, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Paice, James

  Tyler, Paul

  Paterson, Owen

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Viggers, Peter

  Prior, David

  Walter, Robert

  Randall, John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Webb, Steve

  Rendel, David

  Welsh, Andrew

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Whittingdale, John

  Ruffley, David

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wilkinson, John

  Willetts, David

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Willis, Phil

  Salmond, Alex

  Wilshire, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Woodward, Shaun

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Yeo, Tim

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

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Soames, Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spring, Richard

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  WELFARE REFORM AND PENSIONS BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department under the Act;

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided;

  (2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of that Fund.—[Mr. Allen.]

  Question agreed to.

  WELFARE REFORM AND PENSIONS BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) payments out of the National Insurance Fund into the Consolidated Fund in respect of expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act;

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Allen.]

  Question agreed to.

  FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS
  Resolved,
  That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to report on the consultative document on the draft financial services and markets bill presented by Her Majesty's Command on 21st December 1998 and any further draft of the bill which may be laid upon the Table of both Houses by a Minister of the Crown and to report by 30th April 1999.—[Mr. Allen.]
  To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That the Local Authorities (Alteration of Requisite Calculations) (England) Regulations 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 228) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Allen.]
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can help me. I understand that this afternoon my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave some written replies to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). I have been to the Library in the past 15 minutes to see them, but they are not there. I have gone to the Press Gallery, but they are not available there. All hon. Members are entitled to see written answers. I understand that answers from the Foreign Office are often the latest to arrive. I want to see those replies tonight. If they are available to some hon. Members, they should be available to the whole House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. No doubt the House and those on the Front Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman's point.

  Cornish Language
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Andrew George: In many ways, I wish that there had been no need for the debate. I wish that the self-evident case for the official recognition of the Cornish language was accepted for the foregone conclusion that it should be. That may still be so, but the primary point of raising the issue this evening is that the Foreign Office has not yet been informed which of the home Departments has the capacity and responsibility to assess the case. I am not apportioning blame for that, because it has been so for many years. It is not the fault of this Government.
  During the debate, I should like to explain the growing interest in the revival of the Cornish language; the fact that Cornwall wants to make a small but significant contribution to the celebration of the diversity of cultures and languages throughout the British Isles and Europe; and to make the case for the official recognition of the Cornish language.
  Cornish is one of the Brythonic Celtic languages, which include Welsh, Breton and, originally, Cumbrian. The related languages of Scottish Gaelic, Irish and Manx are known are known as Goidelic and are based on a different spelling system.
  Even at the time of the Prayer Book rebellion 450 years ago in 1549, which was a reaction to Parliament passing the first Act of Uniformity, people in many areas of Cornwall, including most of west Cornwall, understood little English. Place names throughout Cornwall bear witness to that.
  We have to keep everything in proportion. The Cornish language is not now a life and death issue, but in 1549 it was. Many Cornish people protesting against the imposition of an English Prayer book were massacred by the King's army. Their leaders were executed and the people suffered numerous reprisals.
  The Cornish language is supposed to have died out in about 1800—a year after the death of Dolly Pentreath, whose native language it was and who could speak little English. However, it carried on throughout the 19th century and into the 20th century. Even in my constituency of St. Ives, fishermen were counting fish in the Cornish language into the 1940s. In the early part of the century, my grandparents on the Lizard were speaking Cornish in a dialect form at home, and a dialect form of Cornish continues to this day in some areas.
  One might ask the extent to which the language is now spoken. The night before last, I was judging the finals of the Pan-Celtic song for Cornwall competition on local radio. There were 32 entries—all sung in the Cornish language—in a variety of genres from folk to classical, rock, punk, indie and rap. Many groups were young people. One of the finalists consisted of five members with an average age of 14. Some of it was fairly ordinary, but the majority was impressive, and the finalists were breathtaking.
  It is estimated that there are approximately 3,000 Cornish speakers. Many thousands more are like me, and either speak some Cornish or have a knowledge of the
  294
  language. The vast majority, if not the whole population, see Cornish as an emblem of pride. Cornish, of course, exists in place names, and a knowledge of the language really helps to read the landscape. Many Cornish names are adopted for children, pets, houses and boats.
  Cornwall county council has an established policy to support the language, and last week passed a motion supporting it being specified within the European charter for regional or minority languages. There are at least three regular periodicals solely in the language—An Gannas, An Gowser and An Garrick. The two local radio stations, Radio Cornwall and Pirate FM, have regular news broadcasts in Cornish, and have other programmes and features for learners and enthusiasts.
  Local newspapers such as the Western Morning News have regular articles in Cornish, and newspapers such as The Packet, The West Briton and The Cornishman have also supported the movement. The St Ives Times & Echo felt so confident about local knowledge of the language that it circulated Christmas messages and cards saying
  "Nadelek Lowen ha Blethen Noweth da"
  and offered no translation to the English version
  "Wishing You a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year".
  The language has financial sponsorship from many sources, including the Millennium Commission. The Bishop's advisory committee on Cornish language services provides advice and support to churches wishing to use the language. Increasingly, churches have visitors' instructions in Cornish and English.
  The take-up of the language is now becoming so widespread that organisations such as Kevas an taves Kernewek, the Cornish Language Board, are finding it difficult to keep up with demand. Others include the Cornish sub-group of the European bureau for lesser-used languages, Teere ha Tavas—or land and language—Gorseth Kernow, Cussel an Tavas Kernuack, Cowethas an Yeth, Agan Tavas and Dalleth, the last of which is the organisation promoting language to pre-school children. There are many popular ceremonies—some ancient, some modern—which either use the language or are entirely in the language.
  Cornwall has many other cultural events associated with the language, including the prestigious international Celtic film festival, which we hosted in St. Ives in 1997, with the programme in Cornish, English and French. There are many films—some televised—made entirely, or significantly, in the language; the latest on the Cornish surfing culture.
  Commercially, Cornish is taking off, with shops selling only Cornish material, such as An Lyverjy Kernewak, the Cornish book shop in the town of Helston in the south of my constituency. Many companies are preferring to use Cornish names, and the GP overnight service in the county is now called Kernowdoc. A great deal now goes on in our schools—more than in my day—and there are many who study Cornish at degree level in places such as Aberystwyth, Wales, and Harvard, USA.
  One may ask what benefit that brings. In a world where many commercial and multinational forces are producing bland uniformity, people want to hold on to—and even develop—the fragments of cultural remains. In Cornwall, I would argue that we have more than simply fragments, and we generate significant cultural tourism not only in itself, but as an added dimension to the tourist experience.

  295
  That has also been significant in helping Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly to secure objective 1 status, which we hope will be secured at the end of March in the next EU funding programme. Eurostat, in its statement agreeing to the splitting of Cornwall from Devon for statistical purposes, made very specific reference to
  "Cornwall's … distinctive cultural and historic factors reflecting a Celtic background."
  Before Cornish can rightfully take its place as an officially recognised language, we need to sort out which Department is responsible for assessing Cornwall's case for being specified under part II of the European charter for regional or minority languages. It has been considered by the Department for Education and Employment, the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Welsh Office; I have asked the Cabinet Office to determine responsibility, but it has put the question back to the Foreign Office.
  Cornwall has an unassailable case for being specified under part II, and some argue that it should also be specified under part III of the charter, but it cannot get to the starting blocks because no Department recognises its responsibility.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Before the hon. Gentleman came to the House, I tabled questions about the Cornish language; one was answered by the Secretary of State for Wales, and the next by the Minister for Sport. The Government seem to have difficulty in identifying where Cornwall is.
  It is a great joy to hear the hon. Gentleman's pronunciation of Cornish. Every word that he has said in Cornish is immediately understandable to a Welsh speaker. There is great enthusiasm for his case and we hope that it will find a willing audience in the Foreign Office Minister—that gives an extraordinary view of how central Government see Cornwall—who will respond tonight.
  Mr. George: Perhaps not so extraordinary. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I entirely agree with him. I said earlier that the present Government are not to blame for the problem, but this needs to be sorted out and one Department must take responsibility. We need to know what other hurdles the Cornish language needs to get over to secure recognition under the charter.
  The framework convention for the protection of national minorities is also often mentioned in Cornwall. The Government say that they will apply the convention to those groups that fall under the definition of a racial group as set out in the Race Relations Act 1976. As is reasonable, the Government are determined that the Cornish are not a racial group under the Act because there have not been any court rulings on whether it is possible to be discriminated against on the ground of being Cornish. That is right and proper. Cornwall is not claiming that its people are a racial group or that Cornish people, however defined, experience significant discrimination or prejudice.
  The problem is whether the Home Office has interpreted the question correctly. It cannot be held that it is necessary to be discriminated against to qualify as a
  296
  minority or a racial group. As the Government cannot justify defining groups by referring to national legislation, do they not accept that, in international law, the view is generally held that the existence of a minority is a question of fact, not of law?
  I am concerned that article 16 of the framework convention is interpreted by a tiny and extreme minority as being usable to justify policies that control or influence population mix. I seek a reassurance that that sinister interpretation is unacceptable to all. If recognising the Cornish language and culture could be interpreted in that way, we would all oppose it. Surely, European charters and conventions are intended to contribute to a celebratory and constructive role for languages and cultures, not to narrow isolationism.
  The debate about how a group is identified as a minority could lead us to a nil sum gain argument which gets everyone nowhere. I refer the Minister back to the preamble of the framework convention, which reflects its spirit. It says:
  "Considering that the creation of a climate of tolerance and dialogue is necessary to enable cultural diversity to be a source and a factor not of division but of enrichment for each society".
  It is exactly that enrichment, and not division, that the Cornish language and the identity of its people can contribute.
  If Cornwall is to play its full part and achieve its full potential in celebrating the diversity of cultures and languages in the British isles and Europe, it should not be excluded from the European charters as that hinders and damages the emerging self-belief and confidence of the language and cultural revival.
  Let me reassure the House—the movement is inclusive. It is not about the Cornish wanting to cut themselves off, but about their wanting to cut into what is going on in a wider Europe. It is not the plaintive cries of the "Stop the world, I want to get off? brigade, because Cornwall wants to get on and get involved. It is time to let Cornish take its proper place, agree a home Department to assess Cornwall's case and move it forward into the charter. After all, it would be absurd not to include Cornish in part II of the charter. Then we could get on with life.
  I must emphasise that Cornwall has been going through an exciting and positive revolution in recent years, and it has seen a growing interest in things Cornish. I am particularly proud to say that that is happening in an environment of harmony and celebration. Indeed, when the Keskerdh Kernow, the Cornwall march, took place from St. Keverne in my constituency to London in 1997, the walkers included those who were Cornish born and bred and those who, without apology or explanation, claimed no Cornish ancestry but a love for and commitment to Cornwall. Although there will always be a few absurd and silly people who would prefer things otherwise, that showed the maturity of the modern Cornish community, with Cornish people and those who would not necessarily define themselves as Cornish—although I would—walking shoulder to shoulder and standing up for Cornwall.
  We are concentrating on positives and looking outward. We want to contribute to the celebration of diversity for positive reasons only. Perhaps soon Cornwall will host a festival of culture from around the British isles and, among the colour of multiculturalism, a Minister may come along and play her Northumbrian pipes. There is

  297
  an old saying in Cornwall—karensa a vynsa, covatys ny vynsa—which, roughly translated, means "love would, greed wouldn't". That is what Cornwall is trying to say. It is not self-seeking, but seeking to be included. I urge the Minister to help us to be included in the charters.
  10.42 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on winning this Adjournment debate and speaking on an issue that I know is dear to his heart and to which he has drawn the attention of hon. Members and my ministerial colleagues on several occasions. As he recognised at the end of his speech, I share strongly his beliefs in the importance of regional cultures and traditions and the need to encourage and welcome diversity at the various levels of government in the United Kingdom, the European Union and other institutions, such as the Council of Europe, to which he referred. As a Geordie with a keen interest in the distinctive folk music of my own region, I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's views, although my playing of the Northumbrian pipes might not be very tuneful to the ears of his constituents.
  I am also aware of the interest shown in the subject by the presence of several hon. Members in the Chamber tonight. The Foreign Office's involvement in the debate relates to the fact that my Department has the lead on Council of Europe issues and the charter for regional minority languages, which the hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned, was set up by that body. I must apologise for the absence of my fellow Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who has taken an interest in this issue and recently met the hon. Gentleman, representatives of interested Cornish groups and language experts. My hon. Friend is on a ministerial visit to Africa and regrets that he is unable to be present this evening.
  I wish to make clear beyond any doubt the degree of commitment that the Government have to Cornwall. In doing so, I take issue with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) with whom I normally have much sympathy. I can tell him firmly that we are well aware of where Cornwall is on the map and, given the efforts that the Government have put in to securing objective 1 status for Cornwall, I am sure that that will be clear to all the inhabitants of Cornwall. We have a strong commitment to that part of the country and it is an important part of our overall devolution strategy that the regions of England should have greater economic vitality in a decentralised framework. Devolution ensures that many decisions affecting people's day-to-day lives will be taken locally, and that those decisions will take into account local needs, conditions and history.
  The creation in the English regions of regional development agencies will benefit Cornwall. Those agencies will help to promote sustainable economic development and will co-ordinate support for business development, including inward investment, training and regeneration. In general, their work will help to develop Cornwall's economy and make Cornwall competitive.
  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly make up one of four areas scheduled to get objective 1 status as a result of the reform of the structural funds in the Agenda 2000
  298
  negotiations. The change has come about following lengthy negotiations, in which it was agreed that Cornwall should not continue to be considered as part of a single region, along with Devon, for structural fund purposes. Cornwall's gross domestic product is only 70 per cent. of the European Union average, and so we expect it to qualify for generous EU assistance designed to promote the development and structural adjustment of the area. Financing from Europe may be for as much as 75 per cent. of projects.
  It will be up to the regional and local authorities to co-ordinate how the funds should be spent, but a number of sectors of the Cornish economy could get support, including small business development, rural and coastal areas, and the information and communications industries. Structural funds can also be used to promote investors in people. The designation of objective 1 status is a valuable opportunity, although careful planning will be needed to maximise the benefit. I understand that the regional authorities already have programme planning in mind.
  Secondly, the hon. Member for St. Ives spoke about the framework convention for the protection of national minorities. The framework convention guarantees people belonging to national minorities equality before the law and freedom from discrimination. Signatories to the convention agree to adopt, where necessary, measures to promote full and effective equality between minority and majority groups in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural life.
  The Government ratified the convention to underline our commitment to tackling racism and xenophobia, in the United Kingdom and across Europe. It is true that the Government have received representations from a relatively small number of people in Cornwall who are seeking recognition of the Cornish people as a national minority under the convention. However, as the hon. Member for St. Ives recognised, very reasonably, the Government clarified their position in response to a series of parliamentary questions in October. The Government said that, for the purposes of the convention, they would base their interpretation of the term "racial group" on the definition set out in the Race Relations Act 1976. That legislations defines a racial group as
  "a group of persons defined by colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins."
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Do other members of the Council of Europe take the same line on the definition of a racial group? I understand that they do not. If there were a divergence in the definition used by different member states, that would be unfortunate, as it could be interpreted to mean that the British Government are discriminating against the Cornish, and that other minority languages and cultures are treated differently.
  Ms Quin: I would prefer to let the hon. Gentleman know in writing the position of other member states, as we understand it. In part, that is because my hon. Friend the Minister of State has had much more contact with the Council of Europe than I. However, the Government are not aware of any rights granted under the framework convention that are denied to people in Cornwall. Indeed, we would be very concerned to hear of any specific barriers preventing people from freely maintaining and expressing their culture and identity.

  299
  Obviously, the convention aims to address the position of minorities across Europe as a whole. I can reassure the hon. Member for St. Ives that we most definitely do not intend to justify policies aimed at preventing natural changes in the racial or ethnic balance of a particular region. That would be totally perverse. Such an interpretation would clearly contravene the spirit of the convention, particularly article 2, which states:
  "The provisions of this framework Convention shall be applied in good faith, in a spirit of understanding and tolerance and in conformity with the principles of good neighbourliness, friendly relations and cooperation between States."
  Such an interpretation would also be contrary to human rights as defined in the European convention on human rights, and it would contravene the welcome addition made to the Amsterdam treaty when we, along with our European Union partners, introduced a non-discrimination clause. All that reinforces our understanding that the convention should not be misused in the way that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises as a danger.
  The hon. Gentleman's main point related to the status of the Cornish language under the Council of Europe's charter for regional or minority languages. He asked how the Government choose to deal with the issue. The charter places legal obligations on contracting parties regarding regional or minority languages spoken in their territories. Regional or minority languages are defined as those that are
  "traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's population; and"
  which are
  "different from the official languages of the State."
  Under the charter, languages can be specified in two categories. Under part II, states commit themselves to base their policies, legislation and practice in respect of minority or regional languages on specified objectives and principles. Should a state decide to specify a regional or minority language under part III of the charter, the state is required to promote its use in public life. That is done by applying several paragraphs from part III, which cover education, justice, public services, the media, cultural activities and facilities, and economic and social life. In other words, they are very wide ranging.
  Mr. Flynn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Ms Quin: I am sorry; I must address the key points raised and I am afraid that I shall not have time if I give way.
  300
  The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central, told the House last June that the Government intended to adhere to the charter. He said that, at the time of ratification of the charter, we would specify the Welsh language in Wales and the Gaelic language in Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland informed my Department that the lengthy process of identifying which minimum of the 35 paragraphs or sub-paragraphs are to be applied to Gaelic in Scotland has now been completed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales hopes shortly to be in a similar position with regard to the Welsh language.
  Once the process is complete, we intend to ratify the charter. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that this is a suitable year in which to do so, as it is the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Council of Europe.
  I am well aware, particularly having heard the hon. Member for St. Ives this evening, that the hon. Gentleman regrets the fact that the Government have not yet taken a position on Cornish. It is a complicated issue, and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that consideration of regional languages in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for the relevant Secretaries of State. For Cornish, the charter raises issues that touch on the responsibilities of a number of Departments. There are implications for education, culture, transport, the judicial system and the whole range of public services in Cornwall.
  The hon. Gentleman was given an assurance when he met my hon. Friend the Minister of State that the matter of the lead Department was with the Cabinet Office. The hon. Gentleman has written to the Prime Minister on that point, and sent copies to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and to other interested hon. Members.
  Following inquiries, I am glad to be able to say that the hon. Gentleman will be given the information about the lead Department on those issues shortly—within the coming month—and he will also receive a reply from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I hope that that will reassure him that, as well as taking Cornwall's general situation seriously in the way that I outlined at the beginning of my contribution, we are dealing with the specific issues that relate to the Cornish language.
  I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments. It is important to raise those issues and I am glad that interest has been shown—a number of hon. Members have attended the debate. I hope that he will feel that, in spite of the frustrations of the past, we are making some progress on the issue.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to support the eight elements of an ideal result as outlined in the European Commission Note from Directorate General I to the Article 113 Committee on investment and the World Trade Organisation; and if he will make a statement; [71755]

  (2) if her Majesty's Government supports the Investor-State Dispute Settlement set out in the European Commission Note from Directorate General I to the Article 113 Committee on investment and the World Trade Organisation; and if he will make a statement; [71753]

  (3) if Her Majesty's Government have asked the European Commission to redraft the leaked Note from Directorate General I to the Article 113 Committee on investment and the World Trade Organisation; and if he will make a statement; [71756]

  (4) if Her Majesty's Government have objected to the contents of the European Commission Note from Directorate General I to the Article 113 Committee on investment and the World Trade Organisation; and if he will make a statement. [71754]

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the European Commission Note from DG1 to the Article 113 committee on investment in the World Trade Organisation. [72249]

  Mr. Wilson
  It is the Government's policy, shared by our EU partners, that the meeting of World Trade Organisation Ministers in Seattle later this year should lead to a comprehensive new "Round" of WTO negotiations, and that investment should be included on the agenda. However, the Government's policy is that any investment negotiation must be based around a new set of objectives, derived by consensus. We are in the process of consulting with all interested groups within the UK on what the Government's objectives for a new negotiation might be. As part of our general consultations over the UK' s objectives for the new "Round". I am convening a series of meetings including other Ministers, NGOs, TUs and business organisations. No conclusions have been reached on the inclusion or exclusion of an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, or indeed on any other individual issue.

  The European Commission circulated an internal discussion paper on possible elements of a WTO investment agreement to Member States on 15 December 1998, with a view to stimulating discussion within the EU. The paper does not represent the views of the UK
  202
  Government. The UK has called for a discussion of the paper by EU investment experts, but such a discussion has not yet taken place.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons Chapters E and F were omitted from the publicly released European Commission Note from Directorate General I to the Article 113 Committee on Investment and the WTO; and if will make a statement. [72056]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]The Note was issued by the European Commission and its contents are a matter for them. However, I have drawn their attention to my hon. Friend's interest and have asked them to respond directly to him.

  London First
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much funding(a) London First and (b) London First Centre has received from his Department per annum since 1992; and for what purposes the funding was specified. [72167]

  Mr. Wills
  Since its incorporation in February 1994, London First Centre (LFC) has received annual grants from the DTI's Invest in Britain Bureau for the coordination of inward investment activities in the Greater London area of £500k (94–95); £1,000k (95–96); £1,010k (96–97); £1,015k (97–98); and £1,015k (98–99).

  London First, of which LFC is a wholly owned subsidiary, has not received grant funding from the DTI. It is financed from members' contributions, donations, project and sundry income.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases were referred to the Crown Prosecution Service in each of the last three years; in how many cases court proceedings were recommended; and if he will make a statement. [72548]

  The Attorney-General
  The table shows the number of cases which the Crown Prosecution Service received from the police, and the number which the Service finalised, in each of the last three years. Both figures are inclusive of cases submitted for pre-charge advice and non-criminal proceedings, and the numbers of these completed in each year are shown separately.

  The table then shows the number and the proportion of cases in which a prosecution did not proceed. These outcomes are divided into those cases discontinued by the Service, and those which were written off because the defendant could not be traced or had died, or because proceedings were adjourned indefinitely.

  Finally, the table shows the number and proportion of cases in which a prosecution proceeded. These are divided

  203
  into cases in which the defendant was bound over to keep the peace, those which proceeded to a committal hearing, and those which proceeded to a trial or guilty plea.

  The Code for Crown Prosecutors requires that there should be sufficient reliable evidence to give a realistic prospect of conviction, and that the prosecution should be in the public interest. These criteria are applied in every case. Every case discontinued must be reviewed by a Crown Prosecutor and, wherever time allows, the police must be consulted before a decision is taken. The number of cases discontinued against the opinion of the police is very small: a survey conducted in 1994 showed that the police objected to discontinuance on only 4 per cent. of occasions when they were consulted.

  However, discontinuance is not primarily the result of a Crown Prosecutor's judgment. More than half of discontinued cases are unable to proceed because witnesses fail to appear at court, refuse to give evidence or change their evidence, defendants produce driving documents proving their innocence on the day of the trial; evidence is excluded because of irregularities in its collection; or due to lack of continuity evidence in the

  Crown Prosecution Service magistrates' courts cases 1996–98

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Did not proceed

  Discontinued

  153,274

  12.0

  161,461

  12.2

  162,661

  12.0

  Written off

  102,283

  8.0

  92,930

  7.0

  88,506

  6.5

  Total cases which did not proceed

  255,557

  20.1

  254,391

  19.2

  251,167

  18.5

  Cases proceeding

  Bind over

  20,016

  1.6

  22,747

  1.7

  24,914

  1.8

  Committal hearing

  98,575

  7.7

  107,979

  8.1

  95,073

  7.0

  Trial or Guilty plea

  900,215

  70.6

  942,665

  71.0

  987,943

  72.7

  Total cases proceeding

  1,018.806

  79.9

  1,073,391

  80.8

  1,107,930

  81.5

  Notes:

  1.The figures given in the draft reply represent cases handled by the 13 Areas of the CPS, but do not include the specialised cases handled by Central Casework.

  2.Cases discontinued are inclusive of those in which the CPS withdrew proceedings at court as well as those discontinued by way of a s23 notice.

  3.Discontinuance fell from 13.3 per cent. of completed cases in 1992 to 12.8 per cent. in 1993, and has remained almost unchanged at around 12 per cent. for each year since then.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Students
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many school students there were in each local education authority that attracts standard spending assessment resources in each of the last five years; what are the estimated figures for 1999–2000; in what years changes in the definition of qualifying students took place; and if he will estimate the effect of these changes on the total numbers. [71810]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]The information requested has been placed in the Library.
  204
  prosecution case which cannot be provided by the police. In these circumstances, the Crown Prosecution Service has no choice but to discontinue proceedings.

  There is no connection between discontinuance and writing off a case. The latter does not represent the termination of proceedings, but is an administrative procedure whereby dormant cases are removed from the record of live proceedings, so giving a more accurate account of work on hand. The majority of write offs occur where the police cannot trace a defendant for service of a summons, or where a warrant for arrest remains unexecuted following the defendant's failure to surrender to bail. If the defendant is subsequently arrested, the prosecution can then recommence.

  Crown Prosecution Service magistrates' courts cases 1996–98

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Received

  1,348,558

  1,388,474

  1,427,837

  Finalised

  1,335,474

  1,387,557

  1,430,555

  of which:

  Pre-charge advice

  46,679

  48,316

  59,799

  Non-criminal proceedings

  14,433

  11,461

  11,660

  Sustainable Development
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government strategy on sustainable development will be announced. [72301]

  Mr. Meale
  Following the extensive "Opportunities for Change" consultation exercise on revision of the 1994 UK Sustainable Development Strategy, preparation of new UK sustainable development strategy is underway. Publication is expected shortly.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if developing countries can withhold agreement to import genetically modified organisms on the basis of detriment to traditional methods of farming. [72209]
  205
  Mr. Meacher
  The UK currently has a delegation in Colombia engaged in final negotiations on the UN Biosafety Protocol. This instrument will govern the transboundary movement of Living Modified Organisms (effectively the same as GMOs).

  While many of the developing countries want to see socio-economic factors such as the effect on traditional farming practices form part of the risk assessment, exporting countries disagree. My instructions are that the UK, on its own and as part of the EU negotiating group, should seek an outcome that includes some reference to socio-economic factors and encourages research into impacts on farming practices. We expect that countries will always be able to ban imports where there is evidence of serious damage to the environment or human health.

  Air Service Agreements
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the Singapore-UK air services agreement; and if he will make a statement. [72163]

  Dr. Reid
  A number of representations have been received on the UK/Singapore air services arrangements, which already provide for unlimited capacity from Summer 2001. At the bilateral negotiations which took place earlier this month my officials confirmed that we would review Singapore's request for transatlantic fifth freedom rights either when we have liberalised the air services arrangements between the UK and the United States or in January 2000, whichever is the sooner.

  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the names of those he has nominated to the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, together with(a) their qualifications, (b) details of relevant (i) public and (ii) private interests and (c) dates of appointment; if he will make a statement on the resources allocated to the Committee; and if he will set out the references to any of the Committee's published reports. [72556]

  Mr. Meacher
  Details of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) are as follows:

  Membership of ACRE, with qualifications and interests:

  Professor John Beringer (Chairman)
  Professor of Molecular Genetics and Dean of Science, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol. Member of Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification (ACGM). Member of the Council of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).

  Dr. Philip Dale
  Senior Research Scientist, John Innes Centre. Consultant to EC DGX1 and United Nations Industrial Development Organisation

  Dr. Ian Garner
  Assistant Director of Research, PPL Therapeutics, Roslin. Member of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council's Genes in Developmental Biology Network.

  Professor Alan Gray
  Head of Furzebrook Research Station, NERC Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. Honorary Professor, University of Southampton.
  206
  Ms Julie Hill
  Programme advisor to Green Alliance. Member of the advisory committee for the Pesticides Trust, Environmental Law Foundation, centre for Ecology and Hytrology and environmental advisory bodies for Shanks and McEwan plc and Southern Electricity.

  Dr. Julian Kinderlerer
  Senior lecturer, Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Sheffield. Assistant Director, Institute of Biotechnology Law and Ethics, University of Sheffield. Member of ACGM. Consultant to UNIDO.

  Mr. John MacLeod
  Director of National Institute of Agricultural Botany. Member of UK Plant Varieties and Seeds Committee. President of Groupe Consultatif International de Recherche sur le Colza.

  Professor Bev Moseley
  Retired, former head of the Institute of Food Research Reading Laboratory.

  Professor David Onions
  Head of the Department of Veterinary Pathology, University of Glasgow. Honorary Director of the Leukaemia Research Funds Human Virus Centre. Consultant to Q-One Biotec. Advisor to Intervet International BV.

  Professor Nigel Poole
  External and Regulatory Affairs Manager, Zeneca Plant Science, Bracknell Honorary Professor, University of Aberdeen Honorary Professor, John Moores University.

  Dr. David Robinson
  Principal Research Scientist, Scottish Crop Research Institute. Honorary Lecturer, University of Dundee. Member of Genetic Manipulation Safety Committee at Nickerson Seeds Castleton of Eassie site.

  Dr. Katherine Venables
  Senior lecturer in epidemiology, Imperial College School of Medicine at the National Heart and Lung Institute. Honorary consultant physician at the Royal Brompton Hospital. Honorary Consultant in Public Health, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority.

  Dr. Ingrid Williams
  Principal scientist, leader of the Insect-Plant Interactions Group, Institute of Arable Crops Research, Rothamsted. Honorary Research Associate, Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research. Visiting Professor, Estonian University of Agriculture. Chairman of International Commission for Plant-Bee Relationships. Council member and company director of International Bee Research Association.

  Dates of appointment
  The chairman and members are appointed for three years, most recently with effect from 17 June 1996.

  Resources allocated
  The costs of ACRE for 1997–98 were as follows:

  £

  Members' fees

  8,805

  Travel subsistence and meetings

  7,338

  Estimated staff costs for servicing ACRE and
  processing cases (salaries, accommodation and
  overheads)

  144,097

  Published reports
  Annual reports for ACRE are placed in the Library. DETR/ACRE have also produced a series of guidance notes and DETR has produced a number of research reports to inform ACRE's advice. These are all listed in the annual reports.

  Biosafety Protocol Meeting, Colombia
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions who will represent his Department at the Biosafety Protocol meeting in Colombia; and if he will make a statement. [72229]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am being represented by officials at the Biosafety Protocol meeting in Colombia. The only European Union Minister to attend, that I am aware of, is the German Health Minister, representing the EU Presidency.

  The Protocol is being prepared by an Open Ended Ad Hoc Working Group which has met five times and is meeting now in Colombia to complete its work. The negotiating brief was agreed by ministers in detail beforehand and is being monitored by ministers throughout the negotiations to ensure it is strictly adhered to. An extraordinary Conference of the Parties will be held immediately afterwards for the adoption of the Protocol. There is to be no high level segment in Colombia and my official acting as Head of Delegation in Colombia will sign for the UK.

  Assuming the Protocol is adopted, I shall sign it at the official ceremony in New York in three months' time.

  Maritime Industry
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the tonnage of UK (i) owned and (ii) registered vessels in the maritime industry; and in each case what the figure was(a) 10 years and (b) 20 years ago. [72074]

  Dr. Reid
  Information on a consistent basis is not available prior to end-1986 because vessels registered in the UK cannot be distinguished from those registered in the Crown Dependencies (Isle of Man and Channel Islands). The information that is available is as follows:

  Tonnage of UK-owned and UK-registered vessels1

  000 deadweight tonnes

  UK-owned vessels

  UK-registered vessels

  Trading vessels

  All vessels

  Trading vessels

  All vessels

  31 December 1986

  18,609

  n/a

  10,458

  11,952

  31 December 1988

  16,593

  18,145

  5,709

  7,072

  31 December 1998

  9,761

  11,577

  2,699

  4,150

  1 All vessels 100 gross tonnes and above

  Source:

  Lloyd's Maritime Information Services Ltd.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many UK(a) officers and (b) ratings are currently employed in the maritime industry; and how many there were (i) 10 years and (ii) 20 years ago. [72073]

  Dr. Reid
  There is no consistent series of UK nationals employed in the maritime industry. The Chamber of Shipping collects data on employment on vessels operated by its members, and this is shown for selected years in 208
  the table. It is known that many UK nationals, especially officers, work on non-member vessels, but precise figures for earlier years are not known.

  UK officers and ratings on vessels entered with the Chamber of Shipping

  Year

  Officers

  Ratings

  1978

  32,188

  25,570

  1986

  10,871

  12,706

  1988

  8,885

  12,114

  1995

  7,724

  8,721

  19971

  6,186

  7,929

  1Forecast

  Note:

  Years refer to 31 December, except 1978 which is 31 September. From 1991 statistics of crew serving as back-up for non-UK flag vessels were specifically included.

  Source:

  Chamber of Shipping Fleet and Manpower Inquiry.

  Agricultural Biotechnology
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money his Department has spent supporting the research and development of agricultural biotechnology since 1 May 1997. [72068]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has not spent any money supporting the research and development of agricultural biotechnology since 1 May 1997.

  DETR-funded research has however been conducted to assess the risks and potential impact of genetically modified organisms on the environment. The annual budget for such work is of the order of £500,000.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Siemens Business Services
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what compensation his Department has(a) requested and (b) received from Siemens plc following delays to the development of a new casework system by Siemens for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [70907]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate Casework Programme is a privately financed business change programme supplied by Siemens Business Services (SBS). Although development of the full Information Technology application has been delayed, many elements of the Programme, and much new Information Technology, have been delivered.

  Some payments are made to SBS for services provided and milestones achieved, but SBS's earnings depend mainly on casework productivity improvements. The programme delay means that productivity has not improved as fast as expected.

  A commercial agreement has also been negotiated with SBS for changes to the contractual payments to reflect the delay in full implementation.
  209
  The payments made to SBS up to the end of 1998 were 4.5 million less than the contract target levels. SBS's earnings will continue to be depressed until the full Information Technology is delivered and productivity and output increase.

  Private Sector Criminal Justice Services
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the last date for which figures are available, how many former employees of his Department have taken new employment with companies involved in the provision of private sector criminal justice services which have contracts with his Department; if he will list

  Grade

  Position in Department

  Company

  Governor 1

  Her Majesty's Prison Wormwood Scrubs

  PPS

  Governor 1

  Prisons Inspectorate

  Group 4

  Governor 1

  Her Majesty's Prison Full Sutton

  PPS

  Governor 2

  Standards Audit

  Group 4

  Governor 2

  Her Majesty's Prison Bristol

  Securicor

  Governor 2

  Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution Aylesbury

  PPS

  Governor 2

  Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution New Hall

  UKDS

  Governor 3

  Her Majesty's Prison Gloucester

  PPS

  Senior Civil Service

  Area Manager

  PPS

  Grade 7

  Education Training Adviser, Prison Service

  Strode College

  Grade 7

  Education Training Adviser, Prison Service

  NESCOTT

  Grade 7

  Education Training Adviser, Prison Service

  Matthew Boulton College

  Senior Civil Service

  Director (Enforcement), Immigration Service

  Group 4 Securitas

  Grade 7

  Police Science and Technology Unit

  Forensic Alliance

  Colchester Young Offenders Institute
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisional conclusions from the research of Dr Kate Painter into the experimental regime at Colchester Young Offenders Institute are available; and if he will publish them. [72607]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No conclusions will be drawn from the research into the experimental regime at Colchester until all the data have been collected and analysed. It is our intention to publish the final research report.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the rules are concerning the rights of prison officers employed in prisons in England and Wales to take in cigarettes, alcohol, food and other items for prison inmates; and if he will make a statement; [72546]

  (2) what private outside purchases paid for by the prisoners are being approved and made by prison officers at prisons in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [72547]

  Mr. George Howarth
  All items provided to prisoners must be provided through the prison shop or the catering department only. No other external shopping on behalf of any prisoner is allowed, but the Governor may authorise shopping for ethnic minority goods where these would not otherwise be available.
  210
  those former employees by their position in his Department and their current position; and if he will make a statement. [71928]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office does not maintain comprehensive records on the employment destinations of members of staff who leave the Department. Subject to the constraints of the Business Appointment Rules, staff are free to seek and take employment outside the Civil Service without the need to seek permission. We are aware of 12 applications within the last two years under the rules, by staff managed by the Prison Service, for permission to work in the private sector. In the same period, elsewhere in the Department, applications were received from two former members of staff for permission to provide advice to private companies, one in connection with a project outside the United Kingdom.

  Crime Victims
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve services for victims of crime and witnesses; and if he will make a statement. [73168]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government are committed to improving the position of victims and witnesses within the criminal justice system. We are increasing very substantially our annual grant to Victim Support to enable them to establish in magistrates' courts a support service for victims, witnesses and other court users to complement the highly successful service they have already established at all Crown Court centres. Up to an additional £2.8 million a year will be provided for this purpose in 1999–2000, rising to up to £4.5 million in 2001–02.

  We shall also be providing an additional £1.8 million a year from 1999–2000 onwards to enable Victim Support further to develop their community based schemes and the support services provided at the Crown Court.

  By 2001–02, therefore, our grant to Victim Support will have risen to some £19 million a year, an increase of 50 per cent. over the current figure of £12.7 million. This substantial injection of new money will enable Victim Support to provide a more complete and seamless service for victims and witnesses, from the reporting of the offence through to the conclusion of the case in the courts and, as appropriate, beyond.

  Freedom of Information Bill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the recent date set for the publication of a Freedom of Information Bill has been postponed. [72241]

  Mr. Straw
  Freedom of Information is a complex subject. There have been a great number of detailed issues to resolve before the Government could publish their draft Bill. It is essential to take the time to get this detail right so as to provide for an effective and workable Freedom of Information Act.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases sent to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to date(a) have been dealt with, (b) are under consideration and (c) are awaiting consideration. [70852]

  Kate Hoey
  I understand that, at the end of January, the Criminal Cases Review Commission had completed 701 cases, had 482 under active review, and 1,055 awaiting review.

  Mink-keeping Licences
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prosecutions have been brought and (b) convictions have been secured against individuals holding a mink-keeping licence or employed by the holder of such a licence for offences related to that activity in the last five years. [71313]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Two prosecutions have been brought by this Department in the last five years against the categories of defendant identified. Both were for animal welfare offences. One conviction was secured. The second case has yet to be concluded.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Economy
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last held discussions with representatives of the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland on the development of the Scottish economy. [70829]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister with responsibilities for business and industry meet regularly with CBI Scotland. My noble Friend last met senior officials of CBI Scotland on 26 October.

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

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met Scottish Enterprise to discuss the Scottish economy. [70831]

  Mr. Dewar
  I meet the Chairman, Chief Executive and Members of Scottish Enterprise regularly to discuss a range of issues relating to the Scottish economy, most recently on 2 November. My noble Friend the Minister with responsibilities for business and industry meets the 212
  Chairman and Chief Executive on at least a monthly basis to discuss a range of issues relating to the Scottish economy.

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

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland to discuss the economy in Scotland. [70833]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Both my right hon. Friend and the Minister with responsibility for business and industry discuss economic matters with CBI Scotland from time to time. Arrangements for my right hon. Friend's next meeting have yet to be made, but the Minister with responsibility for business and industry is due to attend a CBI Scotland event on 12 March.

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

  Redundancies
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of local authority funded organisations created to overcome social exclusion which are currently issuing precautionary redundancy notices to their staff. [70830]

  Mr. McLeish
  While the Government acknowledge the valuable role that can be played by such organisations in the fight against social exclusion, decisions on the staffing levels of local authority funded projects are made by local authorities themselves, and information about such decisions is not held centrally.

  From 1 July 1999 funding for local authorities will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Council Housing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with Scottish local authorities relating to their provision of council housing. [70832]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I discussed aspects of policy relating to the provision of council housing when I met representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities yesterday to brief them on the Green Paper on Housing. I am sure that CoSLA will participate fully in the consultation process which now commences.

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

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest position in relation to starting criminal proceedings on the Lockerbie bombing. [70834]

  Mr. McLeish
  The arrest warrants which were obtained in respect of the two Libyans accused on 13 November 1991 remain outstanding. We continue to look to the Libyan government to respond positively to the UK initiative of 24 August 1998 by arranging for the delivery of those two accused to the authorities of the Netherlands. Once the accused become available to
  213
  the Scottish authorities, the arrest warrants can be executed and the criminal proceedings can follow their usual course, subject only to the changes necessarily made to reflect the exceptional location of the proceedings.

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

  Education
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for education in Scotland. [70835]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government's plans for improving pre-school and school education were set out in our White Paper "Targeting Excellence: Modernising Scotland's Schools", which was published on 27 January. Our priorities for post-16 education and training are set out in our Green Paper "Opportunity Scotland", published in September 1998. Copies of both documents are available in the Library of the House.

  Sewage Disposal
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with water and drainage authorities on their plans for methods of sewage disposal other than dumping at sea; and if he will make a statement. [70836]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Ministers have regular discussions with the water authorities about their plans to dispose of sewage in safe and appropriate ways.

  Following the ending of sea disposal on 31 December 1998 each authority has put in place alternative disposal methods which fully comply with the relevant regulations and protect public health.

  Responsibility for these matters will pass to the Scottish Parliament.

  Electricity (Jobs)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the number of jobs in Scotland which depend on the sale of electricity from Scotland to other parts of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [70837]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The information is not held in the form requested. This is a commercial matter for the Scottish electricity generators but the Government welcome the contribution made by the electricity industry to the Scottish economy.

  Business Survey
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the most recent business survey by the Scottish Chamber of Commerce. [70838]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I have noted the results of the most recent Scottish Chamber's Business Survey, which were released on 13 January 1999.

  No country is immune from the effects of the current instability in the world economy. We fully appreciate the difficulties that this is causing for Scottish businesses and we are taking action to build a stable economy capable
  214
  of sustained and steady growth. The recent reductions in interest rates are possible because of the tough decisions we have taken. The publication of the Competitiveness White Paper is further evidence of the Government's determination to create a strong and vibrant economy.

  From 1 July economic development in Scotland will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Reid Kerr Further Education College
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the consultants' report into the management of Reid Kerr Further Education College. [70839]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I am acutely concerned about the financial position at Reid Kerr College. That is why I agreed to the appointment of consultants last autumn. This report describes a number of steps to be taken by the College's Board of Management in order to draw up a recovery plan aimed at securing the College's future. We have offered financial assistance to the Board, but attached stringent conditions to ensure that the College's problems are addressed immediately, and have sought to ensure that the Board has access to appropriate expertise to assist in framing and implementing the recovery plan.

  Timber
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of log movements in Scotland are currently transported by B class roads; and if he will estimate the percentage which over the last 10 years has been transferred from carriage by sea to carriage on B class roads. [70840]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Most of the timber grown in Scotland is transported along 'B' or 'C' class roads for part of its journey from the forest. While "preferred haulage routes" are usually agreed with local authorities, no detailed records are kept of how much timber is transported along individual roads. The amount of timber carried by sea has not changed significantly over the past 10 years.

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

  Agriculture
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the National Farmers Union of Scotland to discuss the problems facing the agricultural sector. [70841]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my noble Friend Lord Sewel met the National Farming Union for Scotland and other industry bodies on 31 January 1999 to discuss agricultural policy.

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

  Criminal Justice System
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish Law Society to discuss the criminal justice system in Scotland. [70842]
  215
  Mr. McLeish
  The Government meet regularly with representatives of the Law Society of Scotland to discuss aspects of the legal system. I met the Law Society on 13 January.

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

  University Applications
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the current level of university applications. [70843]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Figures released by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service indicated that 59,702 applications to Scottish higher education institutions had been made as at 15 December 1998.

  This will become a matter for the Scottish Parliament from 1 July 1999.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress made by the Social Exclusion Unit in Scotland. [70844]

  Mr. Macdonald
  We have been developing a social inclusion strategy for Scotland to ensure that the action already underway achieves the greatest possible impact. We have established the Social Exclusion Network to co-ordinate policy and action to promote social inclusion across The Scottish Office, and have also set up the Scottish Social Inclusion Network to assist us in preparing a statement of our strategy which we aim to publish shortly.

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

  Trunk Road Maintenance Contracts
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the method of awarding trunk road maintenance contracts in Scotland. [70845]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I am satisfied that The Scottish Office's procedures for the award of trunk road maintenance contracts are fully in line with HM Treasury and European Union guidance.

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

  Council Tax
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate his Department has made of this year's percentage rise in council tax bills in Scotland. [70846]

  Mr. McLeish
  The council tax level for each council will depend on local circumstances and decisions and it is not possible to make reliable estimates at the individual council level. Provided councils heed the Expenditure Guidelines we have issued however, the Scottish average council tax increase should be no more than 5 per cent. in 1999–2000.
  216
  From 1 July this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what responsibilities will be given to the European office to be opened in July in Brussels to represent the Scottish Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [70847]

  Mr. McLeish
  There are no plans to open an office to represent the Scottish Parliament in Brussels. That possibility will be a matter for consideration by the Scottish Parliament itself.

  Arrangements are in hand to establish a representative office for the Scottish Executive, to be in operation when the Parliament assumes its full powers on 1 July 1999. The precise functions of that office will be determined by the Scottish Executive in due course.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) on what date the Scottish Executive will take responsibility for those matters currently the responsibility of his Department which are to be devolved under the Scotland Act 1998; [72512]

  (2) what the arrangements will be in respect of accountability to Parliament for matters which are currently his responsibility but which are to be devolved under the Scotland Act 1998, between 6 May and 1 July; [72513]

  (3) on what date he will cease to be responsible to the UK Parliament for those matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament. [72514]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]The Scotland Act 1998 (Commencement) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/3178), which was made on 16 December 1998, provides that 1 July 1999 will be the principal appointed day for the purposes of the Act. It is on this day that the Scottish Parliament will acquire its powers to make laws and that functions will be transferred to the Scottish Ministers. Until the principal appointed day the Secretary of State for Scotland will remain accountable to Parliament for the matters within his responsibility which are to be devolved.

  The arrangements for financial accountability are set out in The Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Finance) Order 1999, a draft of which was approved by each House recently. The Secretary of State will render accounts to Parliament for expenditure up to the principal appointed day; and the Scottish Ministers to the Scottish Parliament for the period thereafter.

  Integrated Transport Network
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to work in partnership with local authorities to deliver an integrated transport network in Scotland. [70822]

  Mr. McLeish
  Last year's Scottish Transport White Paper recognises that local authorities will play a key role in the delivery of integrated transport.
  217
  We have recently issued consultation documents on Regional Transport Partnerships and Local Transport Strategies, and we are allocating £90 million over three years for a Public Transport Fund to assist local authorities in funding appropriate developments.

  Dental Services
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average waiting time for(a) an initial appointment with and (b) treatment by an NHS orthodontist in Scotland; how much has been allocated to the Scottish Dental Access Initiative; which health boards have applied for funds to date and for how much; how many applications have been successful in each health board area; and how much total funding has been approved and distributed to date. [69272]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]A major proportion of orthodontic treatment is undertaken in general dental practice, rather than in hospitals or the Community Health Service and no information is held centrally on patient waiting times for such treatment. Most orthodontic treatments carried out within the Hospital and Community Health Service settings are undertaken on an outpatient basis. Provisional figures show that, at 30 September 1998, the mean waiting time for a first orthodontic outpatient appointment was 103 days.

  Funding of £1 million has been allocated to the Scottish Dental Access Initiative in 1998–99. Dentists, not Health Boards, apply for funds under the Initiative. Information on the number of applications for funding, offers and payments made, is given in the table. To respect the anonymity of the applicants, information on the Scottish Dental Access Initiative is not provided on an individual Health Board basis.

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

  Scottish Dental Access Initiative

  Number of applications received

  28

  Amount applied for (£000)

  970

  Number of offers made1

  13

  Amount offered (£000)

  379

  Payments made (£000)

  134

  1Offers number 6 in western, 5 in northern and 2 in eastern Health Board areas.

  NHS Managers
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many managers have been seconded to implement the new NHS structures in Scotland. [71887]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Five managers have been seconded to the NHS in Scotland Management Executive on a full or part-time basis to help with implementation of the new structures in Scotland. This represents 2.8 whole time equivalents.

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

  Fixed Penalties
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fixed penalties were imposed by Scottish 218
  courts last year in (a) Scotland as a whole and (b) each individual sheriffdom, broken down by offence; and what was (i) their total value and (ii) the total amount of money recovered. [71872]

  Mr. McLeish
  Scottish courts do not impose a conditional offer of a fixed penalty. The decision whether to offer an alleged offender a fixed penalty (fiscal fine) is a matter for the Procurator Fiscal. The police or the Procurator Fiscal can also offer a fixed penalty for certain road traffic offences.

  The numbers of criminal reports concluded by way of a fiscal fine in each of the sheriffdoms in Scotland and in total for 1997–98 are as follows:

  Sheriffdoms

  Number

  Grampian, Highland and Islands

  2,136

  Tayside, Central and Fife

  3,003

  Lothian and Borders

  1,582

  North Strathclyde

  2,651

  South Strathclyde Dumfries and Galloway

  4,088

  Glasgow and Strathkelvin

  5,501

  All Scotland

  18,961

  This information cannot be broken down by offence.

  In 1997–98 approximately £527,000 was collected by the district courts from the payment of fiscal fines.

  The 1997 provisional figures for fixed penalties dealt with by the police by force area and type of offence are as follows:

  Force area

  Moving vehicle offences1

  Stationery vehicle offences

  Central

  6,943

  16,349

  Dumfries and Galloway

  8,003

  7,206

  Fife

  5,543

  17,779

  Grampian

  14,938

  30,279

  Lothian and Borders

  22,305

  117,644

  Northern

  5,902

  11,138

  Strathclyde

  51,536

  210,567

  Tayside

  8,444

  27,719

  Scotland

  123,614

  438,681

  1Includes speeding vehicle excise licence, parking, motorway traffic, seat belt and other motor vehicle offences

  Information on conditional offers of a fixed penalty made by the Procurator Fiscal for road traffic offences is not held centrally.

  In 1997–98, the district courts received approximately £6.7 million in fixed penalty payments.

  From 1 July, Procurator Fiscal conditional offers (fiscal fines) will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Fixed penalties for road traffic offences will be reserved.

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many cases where a fixed penalty was imposed civil diligence was initiated in 1998 in(a) Scotland as a whole and (b) each individual sheriffdom; how much money was so recovered; and if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to recover the amount owing from fines. [71873]
  219
  Mr. McLeish
  The district courts in Scotland collect fixed penalty payments. In 1997–98, civil diligence was used to collect unpaid fixed penalties (including fiscal fines) in 34,071 cases.

  Information on the amounts recovered by diligence is not held centrally.

  Recovery of unpaid fixed penalties can be done in a number of ways. It is for the courts to determine how best to recover these fines taking account of the individual circumstances of each case.

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

  Nurses
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many full-time nurses are employed by the NHS in Scotland. [71867]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The latest provisional data available indicate that as at 30 September 1998 there were 24,936 nurses and midwives employed on a full-time basis by the NHS in Scotland.

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

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of nurses who have completed nursing training in Scotland since May 1997 have then taken up a nursing job in the NHS in Scotland. [71866]

  Mr. Galbraith
  This information is not held centrally.

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

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nurses have been(a) recruited and (b) trained in Scotland since May 1997. [71875]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The available information is as follows:

  (a) According to provisional figures, there were 2,845 nurses and midwives employed in the NHS in Scotland at 30 September 1998 who had joined since September 1997.

  (b) 2,855 student nurses have successfully completed basic training since 1 May 1997.

  The 2 sets of data are not comparable because they derive from different sources, and in particular because the figures on recruits to employment:

  (i) includes midwives as well as nurses

  (ii) includes rejoiners as well as new entrants

  (iii) excludes nurses working in general practices, banks and agencies.

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

  Source:
  Employment Data—Information and Statistics Division of the Common Services Agency for the NHS in Scotland
  Training Data—National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland.

  Temporary Sheriffs
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a list of those holding commissions as temporary sheriffs on 15 January, including details of when each of the temporary sheriffs was first appointed. [71886]

  Mr. McLeish
  I have arranged to have placed in the Library a list of those holding commissions as temporary sheriffs on 15 January, showing dates of first appointment in that capacity.

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

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many temporary sheriffs held commissions on 15 January; and of these, how many were(a) solicitors, (b) advocates, (c) female, (d) under the age of 40 (e) 60 to 64 and (f) 65 years of age or over. [71888]

  Mr. McLeish
  On 15 January 131 commissions as temporary sheriffs were in force. Of these(a) 84 were solicitors, (b) 47 were advocates, (c) 16 were female, (d) 7 were under age 40, (e) 5 were aged 60 to 64 and (f) 7 were aged 65 or over.

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

  Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money listed by each NHS trust in Scotland has been directed into the Waiting List Initiative. [71889]

  Mr. Galbraith
  An additional £44.5 million was made available to tackle waiting lists and waiting times. £40 million was allocated to Health Boards to enable them to implement their plans for achieving reductions. The funding issued to each Health Board is set out in Table 1. The remaining £4.5 million was issued to those NHS Trusts which had achieved waiting list reductions. The awards to NHS Trusts are set out in Table 2.

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

  Table 1: Waiting lists funding to Health Boards

  £ million

  Health Board

  Funding

  Argyll and Clyde

  3.3

  Aryshire and Arran

  2.4

  Boarders

  0.9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1.3

  Fife

  2.4

  Forth Valley

  2.2

  Grampian

  4.0

  Greater Glasgow

  7.7

  Highland

  1.5

  Lanarkshire1

  4.2

  Lothian

  5.5

  Orkney

  0.5

  Shetland

  0.2

  Tayside

  3.2

  Western Isles

  0.3

  Common Services Agency2

  0.4

  1Includes £300,000 funding for the Scottish Ambulance Service

  2Funding for Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service

  221

  Table 2: Awards to NHS Trusts

  £

  NHS Trust

  Award

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  450,000

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  300,000

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  300,000

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  300,000

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  300,000

  Monklands General Hospital NHS Trust

  300,000

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  300,000

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  300,000

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  150,000

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  150,000

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  150,000

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  150,000

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  150,000

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  150,000

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  150,000

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  150,000

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  150,000

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  150,000

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  150,000

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  150,000

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  150,000

  4,500,000

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what indicators have been used to measure value for money gained from funds directed towards the waiting list initiative in Scotland. [71871]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Health Boards, in conjunction with NHS Trusts, prepared detailed plans for achieving reductions in waiting lists and waiting times. A clinical and professional Support Force examined the plans and discussed them with representatives of Health Boards and NHS Trusts. Prior to recommending the plans for approval, the Support Force ensured that they were robust, deliverable and would achieve value for money, through an assessment of the project costs and the anticipated impact on waiting lists. Monitoring of expenditure by Health Boards on their plans, and the outcomes achieved, is ongoing.

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

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the money spent to reduce waiting lists in Scotland over the last year was allocated specifically for that purpose. [71870]

  Mr. Galbraith
  An additional £40 million was issued to the NHS in Scotland in 1998 specifically to tackle waiting lists and waiting times. In February 1999, an additional £4.5 million was issued as awards to those NHS Trusts which had achieved waiting list reductions.

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

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been directed towards reducing waiting list figures in the last three months in Scotland. [71884]
  222
  Mr. Galbraith
  An additional £20 million was issued to the NHS in Scotland in April 1998 for action to secure early reductions in waiting lists, and a further £20 million was issued in September/November 1998 to fund over 190 strategic projects designed to secure sustained reductions in waiting times and waiting lists. In February 1999, £4.5 million was issued as awards to those NHS Trusts which had achieved early reductions in waiting lists.

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

  Hospital Beds
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospital beds there are per 1,000 of the population in Scotland. [71869]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Provisional figures for the year ending 30 September 1998 indicate that there were 7.3 NHS inpatient beds per 1,000 population.

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

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average percentage of beds occupied in Scottish hospitals. [71868]

  Mr. Galbraith
  In the year ending 30 September 1998, provisional figures show that the average percentage of all NHS inpatient beds occupied was 79.9 per cent.

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

  Local Government Boundary Commission
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland with reference to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland's report to him on the Second Statutory Review of Electoral Arrangements, in which local authority areas consultants were engaged(a) to complete, (b) to validate and (c) to examine the local authorities' initial proposals to the Commission; and what was the cost of such work to the Commission. [71891]

  Mr. McLeish
  No consultants were engaged by the Commission for the purposes mentioned for any local authority area.

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

  HIV
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the anonymised programme of HIV surveillance in Scotland, setting out for each survey currently in operation or planned the(a) location, (b) targeted populations, (c) clinical reasons for initial collection of specimens, (d) number of specimen collection venues, (e) annual specimen numbers and (f) most recent prevalence data. [71910]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The statistical information is set out in the tables.

  The two principal targeted populations are genito-urinary clinic attenders and neonates. For the latter, prevalence of HIV antibody positivity among neonates is

  223
  an indicator of the prevalence of HIV infection among childbearing women. Up to 1997, additional unlinked anonymous HIV testing was performed on pregnant women in Edinburgh and Dundee. Because HIV prevalence among this group has remained relatively low and stable, these additional surveys were discontinued as at December 1997.

  Genito-urinary clinic attenders having a syphilis serology test or presenting with a new sexually-transmitted disease for the first time in a calender quarter are eligible for entry into the survey. HIV testing of

  Incidence of HIV infection among genito-urinary clinic attenders 1995–971

  1995

  1996

  1997

  N

  %+ve

  N

  %+ve

  N

  %+ve

  Greater Glasgow

  Homo/Bisexual Males (excl. IDUs)

  255

  4.31

  215

  4.65

  311

  1.93

  Hetero Males (excl. IDUs)

  2,035

  0.20

  1,519

  0.20

  2,105

  0.14

  Hetero Females (excl. IDUs)

  1,374

  0.07

  956

  0.21

  1,232

  0.00

  Injecting Drug Users(IDU)

  38

  5.26

  37

  2.70

  50

  0.00

  Other/Unknown

  64

  0.00

  77

  0.00

  101

  0.00

  Total

  3,766

  0.48

  2,804

  0.57

  3,799

  0.24

  Lothian

  Homo/Bisexual Males (excl. IDUs)

  292

  3.08

  477

  3.98

  437

  3.66

  Hetero Males (excl. IDUs)

  2,246

  0.40

  2,087

  0.29

  2,241

  0.22

  Hetero Female (excl. IDUs)

  1,971

  0.20

  1,876

  0.32

  2,231

  0.18

  Injecting Drug Users (IDU)

  27

  3.70

  35

  11.43

  55

  7.27

  Other/Unknown

  27

  0.00

  35

  0.00

  50

  0.00

  Total

  4,563

  0.50

  4,510

  0.78

  5,014

  0.58

  Tayside

  Homo/Bisexual Males (excl. IDUs)

  28

  7.14

  38

  2.63

  46

  0.00

  Hetero Males (excl. IDUs)

  515

  0.58

  468

  0.21

  550

  0.18

  Hetero Females (excl. IDUs)

  248

  0.40

  297

  0.00

  379

  0.00

  Injecting Drug Users (IDU)

  16

  0.00

  9

  0.00

  31

  9.68

  Other/Unknown

  17

  0.00

  22

  0.00

  52

  0.00

  Total

  824

  0.73

  834

  0.24

  1,058

  0.38

  Grampian

  Homo/Bisexual Males (excl. IDUs)

  34

  0.00

  83

  1.20

  50

  6.00

  Hetero Males (excl. IDUs)

  481

  0.21

  489

  0.00

  505

  0.40

  Hetero Females (excl. IDUs)

  336

  0.00

  428

  0.00

  425

  0.71

  Injecting Drug Users (IDU)

  14

  0.00

  46

  0.00

  57

  0.00

  Other/Unknown

  14

  0.00

  14

  0.00

  69

  1.45

  Total

  879

  0.11

  1,060

  0.09

  1,106

  0.81

  Other

  Homo/Bisexual Males (excl. IDUs)

  23

  4.35

  19

  15.79

  28

  0.00

  Hetero Males (excl. IDUs)

  363

  0.00

  303

  0.00

  477

  0.00

  Hetero Females (excl. IDUs)

  297

  0.34

  258

  0.00

  467

  0.00

  Injecting Drug Users (IDU)

  11

  0.00

  8

  0.00

  15

  0.00

  Other/Unknown

  8

  0.00

  4

  0.00

  9

  0.00

  Total

  702

  0.28

  592

  0.51

  996

  0.00

  Scotland

  Homo/Bisexual Males (excl. IDUs)

  632

  3.64

  832

  4.09

  872

  2.87

  Hetero Males (excl. IDUs)

  5,640

  0.30

  4,866

  0.21

  5,878

  0.19

  Hetero Females (excl. IDUs)

  4,226

  0.17

  3,815

  0.21

  4,734

  0.15

  Injecting Drug Users (IDU)

  106

  2.83

  135

  3.70

  208

  3.37

  Other/Unknown

  130

  0.00

  152

  0.00

  281

  0.36

  Total

  10,734

  0.47

  9,800

  0.58

  11,973

  0.43

  1Attenders at GUM clinics in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Perth, Aberdeen, Falkirk, and Stirling Geographical categorisation is by the health board area in which the clinic is sited.

  224
  neonates is performed on dried blood spots collected on Guthrie cards used for neonatal metabolic screening tests for conditions such as hypothyroidism and phenylketonuria.

  For genito-urinary clinic attenders the collection venues are two genito-urinary clinics in Glasgow, one in Edinburgh, one in Dundee, one in Aberdeen, one in Falkirk and one in Stirling. For neonates, all Guthrie cards are sent directly to the neonatal metabolic screening laboratory at Stobhill General Hospital, Glasgow.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  225

  Incidence of HIV infection among women attending antenatal clinics or undergoing termination of pregnancy—Lothian and Tayside (excluding injecting drug users)1995–971

  1995

  1996

  1997

  N

  %+ve

  N

  %+ve

  N

  %+ve

  Lothian

  12,173

  0.06

  12,965

  0.08

  12,214

  0.07

  Tayside

  3,547

  0.08

  3,639

  0.14

  3,516

  0.06

  1This survey was confined to pregnant women attending clinics in Edinburgh and Dundee. Geographical categorisation is by the health board area in which the clinic is sited.

  Incidence of HIV infection among neonates 1995–97

  1995

  1996

  1997

  N

  %+ve

  N

  %+ve

  N

  %+ve

  Greater Glasgow

  Childbearing women (incl. IDUs)

  10,380

  0.01

  10,093

  0.01

  10,412

  0.01

  Lothian

  Childbearing women (incl. IDUs)

  9,266

  0.06

  9,224

  0.10

  9,332

  0.04

  Tayside

  Childbearing women (incl. IDUs)

  4,494

  0.04

  4,414

  0.07

  4,623

  0.04

  Grampian

  Childbearing women (incl. IDUs)

  6,139

  0.00

  5,998

  0.02

  6,146

  0.02

  Other

  Childbearing women (incl. IDUs)

  30,620

  0.02

  29,854

  0.01

  30,526

  0.02

  Scotland

  Childbearing women (incl. IDUs)

  60,899

  0.02

  59,574

  0.03

  61,039

  0.02

  Gaelic Medium Units
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the Gaelic-medium units in Scottish primary schools and the number of pupils studying them in each year since 1985. [71674]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 22 February 19991 The table shows numbers of Gaelic-medium units in Scottish primary schools and the total number of pupils in each year since 1985:

  Unit

  Pupils

  1985–86

  2

  24

  1986–87

  6

  64

  1987–88

  9

  112

  1988–89

  13

  169

  1989–90

  19

  286

  1990–91

  25

  431

  1991–92

  31

  614

  1992–93

  38

  824

  1993–94

  45

  1,080

  1994–95

  47

  1,258

  1995–96

  50

  1,456

  1996–97

  52

  1,587

  1997–98

  55

  1,736

  1998–99

  56

  1,816

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

  Media Allegations (Rebuttals)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) those units in his Department and (b) the number of departmental staff which are concerned with preparing rebuttals of allegations in the media; and what is (i) the total cost of their work, including salaries, and (ii) the number of rebuttals issued since May 1997. [71844]
  226
  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]In common with other departments, the work of press officers in my department includes responding to and correcting any misinformed or inaccurate media reporting of Government policy or activity. They are supported in this work by other officials as necessary.

  This is a routine part of a Department's work and it is not separately recorded from other tasks.

  Solicitors (Payments)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the criteria he has applied(a) in selecting the areas in which solicitors will receive an enhanced fixed payment for summary criminal legal aid cases and (b) in determining the level of the enhanced payment. [71860]

  Mr. McLeish
  The criteria were chosen to reflect a combination of small numbers of cases dealt with and time taken to travel to the court.

  The 15 Sheriff courts in Scotland with the lowest throughput of cases were therefore identified. Any courts which were less than 40 miles from the nearest other sheriff court and which could be reached without a sea crossing were eliminated from the list. The resultant list of courts for which an additional payment will be available is Campbeltown, Stornoway, Lockmaddy, Kirkwall, Lerwick, Oban, Portree, Lochgilphead and Rothesay Sheriff courts.

  The additional fee of £50 was determined to provide reasonable remuneration to solicitors who have to represent clients in these courts. The Sheriff Court core fee has also been increased to £500 for all courts. From 1 July 1999 legal aid in Scotland will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Foundation for Sports and Arts
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been granted by the Foundation for Sports and Arts in Scotland over the past five years. [72267]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]The information is set out in the table.

  £

  Year

  Sport

  Arts

  1994

  2,937,337.13

  1,634,091.00

  1995

  1,867,394.00

  1,223,425.00

  1996

  2,148,410.78

  767,935.00

  1997

  738,363.32

  291,551.00

  1998

  544,021.75

  147,686.00

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

  Sports Council
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the Scottish Sports Council has invested over the past five years as a percentage of its total expenditure in(a) Glasgow and (b) Scotland's other cities. [72266]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]It is not possible to provide a breakdown of the Council's grant in aid expenditure in the form requested. The information in respect of awards from the Lottery Sports Fund is set out in the table.

  LSF awards to Scottish cities (to 18 February 1999)

  City

  LSF programme

  Total awards

  Percentage of total (per programme)

  Glasgow

  Capital

  19,387,144

  26.4

  Talented Athletes

  278,844

  6.4

  Major Events

  462,161

  49.4

  Safety at Sports Grounds

  0

  0

  Awards for All

  34,025

  5.7

  Sub Total

  20,162,174

  123.5

  Edinburgh

  Capital

  8,199,824

  11.1

  Talented Athletes

  830,123

  18.9

  Major Events

  160,720

  17.2

  Safety at Sports Grounds

  0

  0

  Awards for All

  23,160

  3.9

  Sub Total

  9,213,827

  110.7

  Aberdeen

  Capital

  2,198.608

  3.0

  Talented Athletes

  125,611

  2.9

  Major Events

  0

  0

  Safety at Sports Grounds

  0

  0

  Awards for All

  12,087

  2.0

  Sub Total

  2,336,306

  12.7

  Dundee

  Capital

  3,626,250

  5.0

  Talented Athletes

  61,202

  1.4

  Major Events

  0

  0

  Safety at Sports Grounds

  1,000,000

  47.5

  Awards for All

  5,559

  0.9

  Sub Total

  4,693,011

  15.5

  1As percentage of total commitments across all programmes

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

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many members of the Scottish Sports Council there are; when each was appointed; and by which Secretary of State for Scotland each was appointed. [72263]
  228
  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]The information requested is set out in the table.

  Name

  Date of current appointment

  Appointment by

  Mr. Graeme M. Simmers, CBE (Chairman)

  June 1995

  Rt. Hon. Ian Lang MP

  Mr. Alan Grosset (Vice-Chairman)

  November 1998

  Rt. Hon. Donald Dewar MP

  Mrs. Evelyn Raistrick

  November 1997

  Rt. Hon. Donald Dewar MP

  Mr. David Arnott

  November 1997

  Rt. Hon. Donald Dewar MP

  Mrs. Jane Heaney

  May 1996

  Rt. Hon. Michael Forsyth MP

  Mr. Eamonn Bannon

  August 1996

  Rt. Hon. Michael Forsyth MP

  Mrs. Louise Martin

  November 1997

  Rt. Hon. Donald Dewar MP

  Mr. Ian Mason

  December 1998

  Rt. Hon. Donald Dewar MP

  Mr. Alastair Dempster

  December 1998

  Rt. Hon. Donald Dewar MP

  Mr. Ritchie Campbell

  December 1998

  Rt. Hon. Donald Dewar MP

  Miss Fiona Reid

  December 1998

  Rt. Hon. Donald Dewar MP

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

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff are employed by the Scottish Sports Council; and where they are based. [72274]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]In 1997–98 the Scottish Sports Council employed 187 staff at its headquarters in Edinburgh and at its three national centres at Aviemore, Largs and Cumbrae. More detailed information is contained in the Council's Annual Report and Accounts for 1997–98, a copy of which is in the Library.

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

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much grant money was given or is planned to be given to(a) Scottish sports in total and (b) each sport in Scotland over (i) the past three years and (ii) the next three years. [72273]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]The amount of grant aid given to governing bodies of sport by the Scottish Sports Council for the past three years is set out in the table. The projected total grant-in-aid, and the grant-in-aid to be made available to individual governing bodies of sport, for the next three financial years has not yet been agreed by the Scottish Sports Council.

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

  Grants offered to governing bodies from 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1998

  GB Name

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Scottish Anglers National Association

  9,000

  9,000

  9,000

  Scottish Federation of Sea Anglers

  0

  26,500

  13,000

  Scottish Federation of Coarse Anglers

  3,000

  5,800

  2,800

  Scottish Archery Association

  4,850

  4,800

  4,000

  Scottish Athletic Federation

  164,850

  157,000

  46,943

  Scottish Badminton Union

  116,370

  116,250

  116,250

  Scottish Basketball Association

  60,000

  62,000

  61,500

  Scottish Women's Bowling Association

  4,500

  4,500

  5,723

  Scottish Bowls Coaching Committee

  6,500

  6,500

  6,500

  Scottish Boxing Association

  19,000

  0

  0

  Scottish Canoe Association

  41,700

  40,243

  41,700

  Scottish Cricket Union

  60,800

  58,700

  61,500

  Scottish Croquet Association

  1,500

  1,500

  1,500

  Royal Caledonian Curling Club

  12,000

  17,350

  40,225

  Scottish Cyclists' Union

  95,560

  57,825

  56,000

  229

  Grants offered to governing bodies from 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1998

  GB Name

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Scottish Amateur Dancesport Association

  17,500

  10,000

  10,000

  Fitness Scotland

  45,000

  35,000

  34,500

  Health & Beauty

  2,670

  2,600

  2,600

  Scottish Fencing

  19,000

  20,000

  20,000

  Scottish Field Archery Association

  1,000

  800

  800

  Scottish Women's Football Association

  26,000

  27,500

  27,500

  Scottish Gliding Association

  3,000

  3,000

  2,000

  Scottish Ladies Golf Association

  3,000

  3,000

  0

  Scottish Gymnastics Association

  87,000

  78,450

  91,250

  Scottish Hang/Paragliding Association

  2,000

  0

  1,000

  Scottish Hockey Union

  8,771

  398,500

  210,300

  Scottish Judo Federation

  0

  145,650

  98,000

  Scottish Karate Board

  0

  11,400

  11,400

  Scottish Lacrosse Association

  10,100

  10,000

  8,500

  Scottish Lawn Tennis Association

  69,000

  64,000

  64,000

  Mountaineering Council of Scotland

  9,000

  10,000

  10,000

  Scottish Netball Association

  30,000

  24,600

  25,600

  Scottish Orienteering Association

  50,400

  28,000

  28,000

  Scottish Sports Parachute Association

  5,500

  0

  0

  British Horse Society (Scotland)

  18,500

  16,500

  16,500

  Scottish Amateur Rowing Association

  0

  28,200

  14,600

  Scottish Women's Rugby Union

  2,000

  2,000

  2,000

  Scottish Rugby Union

  0

  700,000

  700,000

  RYA Scotland

  62,350

  70,661

  66,200

  The Camanachd Association

  15,000

  15,000

  0

  Scottish Target Shooting Federation

  0

  41,500

  42,250

  Scottish Ice Skating Association

  4,000

  4,000

  4,000

  Scottish National Ski Council

  60,400

  60,400

  60,400

  Scottish Squash

  85,400

  83,000

  78,000

  Scottish Sub Aqua Club

  20,800

  20,800

  20,800

  Scottish Surfing Federation

  1,000

  700

  0

  Scottish Amateur Swimming Association

  176,550

  175,000

  188,800

  Scottish Table Tennis Association

  42,000

  42,000

  36,000

  Scottish Trampoline Association

  0

  40,000

  5,000

  Scottish Triathlon Association

  2,000

  2,000

  4,400

  Scottish Tug of War Association

  1,800

  0

  3,600

  Scottish Volleyball Association

  0

  80,000

  80,000

  Scottish Waterski Association

  0

  40,000

  20.000

  Scottish Amateur Weight-Lifters Association

  13,500

  0

  11.450

  Scottish Wrestling Association

  7,000

  12,000

  7,000

  Scottish School Sports

  1,200

  0

  0

  Scottish Sports Association

  41,000

  38,000

  36,200

  Scottish Sports Association for People with a Disability

  0

  20,000

  20,000

  Total

  1,543,071

  2,934,229

  2,530,291

  Note:

  The above are details of grants offered, but not necessarily paid, to governing bodies of sport for the Scottish Sports Council financial years as stated. The figures do not necessarily coincide with any governing body's financial year and may represent only part of, or more than, one year's funding.

  Talented Athlete Programme
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been invested in Glasgow under the Talented Athlete Programme(a) in each sport and (b) as a proportion of the total spent in Scotland on the programme. [72264]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is set out.

  Talented athlete programme awards in Glasgow

  Sport

  Total awards (£)

  Angling

  1,734

  Aquatics

  7,896

  Athletics

  38,831

  Basketball

  2,000

  Canoeing

  4,500

  Cricket

  21,239

  Curling

  8,435

  Fencing

  9,000

  Golf, Men

  5,750

  230

  Talented athlete programme awards in Glasgow

  Sport

  Total awards (£)

  Golf, Women

  3,000

  Gymnastics

  2,000

  Hockey

  36,002

  Lawn Tennis

  2,000

  Movement and Dance

  2,975

  Netball

  20,975

  Rowing

  3,750

  Squash

  10,356

  Volleyball

  47,430

  Women's Rugby

  9,532

  Weightlifting

  9,000

  Wrestling

  9,670

  Total

  278,844

  Note:

  Percentage of total TAP awards 6.4 per cent.

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

PRIME MINISTER

  European Union Fraud
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to respond to the request dated 14 January from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), asking him to publish the letter he sent to Pauline Green MEP concerning the European Parliament's vote on EU fraud and the motion of censure. [70664]

  The Prime Minister
  I have not been able to identify any such request. However, I have replied in full to the letter of 18 December from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) about the European Commission's vote not to accept the recommendations of its Budgetary Control Committee to grant discharge to the Commission for its implementation of the 1996 Budget. If the right hon. and learned Member wishes me to do so, I would be glad to put copies of the correspondence in the Library.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 10 February 1999,Official Report, column 313, what is his policy towards each of the criticisms of the Civil Service set out in the second report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Sierra Leone (HC116 of Session 1998–99). [71687]

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will review the guidelines for the management of Departments by Ministers following the publication of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone (HC116 of Session 1998–99). [71828]

  The Prime Minister
  A formal reply to the Foreign Affairs Committee Report HC116 is being prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and will be submitted to Parliament in due course.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the statement by the Foreign Secretary that the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone uncovered no evidence which was not
  231
  contained in the Legg report and if this statement will be included in the formal Government response to the report. [71826]

  The Prime Minister
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. As I told the House on 10 February 1999,Official Report, columns 313–14, the facts to which the Foreign Affairs Committee Report drew attention had already been covered by Sir Thomas Legg's inquiry, which confirmed that there was no conspiracy or cover up. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is preparing a formal reply to the Report which it will be submitting to Parliament shortly.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date and at what time(a) he, (b) other departmental Ministers and (c) his officials first had access to the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone. [72603]

  The Prime Minister
  My Office received advance embargoed copies of the report from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at approximately 0830 hours on Tuesday 9 February 1999.

  Notes of Dissent
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1979 permanent secretaries have filed a formal note of dissent registering their disapproval of a ministerial instruction. [71681]

  The Prime Minister
  No central record is kept of any formal notes of dissent except where they lead to the issuing of a Ministerial instruction (or "Direction") as provided for in the procedures set out in paragraphs 12–15 of the Treasury document The Responsibilities of an Accounting Officer. Under these procedures the Treasury is informed when a Ministerial Direction is issued. Until December 1994 Departments were required to inform the Treasury about Ministerial Directions concerning propriety and regularity only, and not those concerning value for money. From December 1994 Departments were required to inform the Treasury of both kinds of Directions. Treasury records show that since 1981 the Treasury has been informed of 28 Directions. No central record is held of notes (if there are any) recording an Accounting Officer's dissatisfaction at a Ministerial Direction.

  Select Committees
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future relationship between Ministers and parliamentary Select Committees. [71825]

  The Prime Minister
  In their dealings with Select Committees, Ministers will continue to abide by the Resolution on Ministerial Accountability adopted by the House on 19 March 1997.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he has taken to establish an international test day for the millennium compliance of computer systems; and if he will make a statement. [72156]

  The Prime Minister
  It is clear that testing is the cornerstone of a successful Year 2000 programme. As such all Government Departments and agencies are required to have testing strategies in place. Testing is also 232
  highlighted in the advice on tackling the millennium bug that Action 2000 makes available to small businesses. We have also been encouraging other countries to take testing seriously. However, decisions on the appropriate level of testing are for individual organisations to make, whether they are in the public or private sector, depending on the business risks faced if a particular system, or the interfaces between that system and other organisations, fails. In a number of sectors, there has been a co-ordinated approach to testing.

  However, organising an international test day would not only be extremely difficult but might risk diverting resources away from on-going work.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 521, concerning Iraq, if he will seek to have the work of the Security Council's panel on the humanitarian situation in Iraq expedited. [72503]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]The humanitarian panel is expected to start work on 1 March. In the interest of identifying measures to make the provision of humanitarian relief more effective and thereby improve the situation of the Iraqi people, the panel will wish to give full consideration to all the relevant issues. Meanwhile we are continuing to work with the United Nations to improve the present "oil for food" arrangements.

  Visits (Wales)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his visits to Wales over the past four months, and the cost of these visits. [72254]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]I have visited Wales on three occasions over the past four months. These were:

  Friday 27 November—Cardiff

  Friday 15 January—Mold and Clwyd

  Wednesday 3 February—Cardiff.

  It is not possible to give full costs for these visits as some of the invoices have not yet been processed.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the representations he has received during the last six months on genetically modified crops. [72206]

  The Prime Minister
  In the last six months my office has received over 100,000 items of correspondence from members of the public. Of these approximately 1,000 have related to biotechnology issues and of these approximately 50 have related specifically to genetically modified crops.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has been present at meetings between members of the Government and representatives of the companies promoting genetically modified crops. [72235]
  233
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]I and my Ministers are in regular contact with representatives of all those with an interest in biotechnology—including environmental groups, consumer groups and biotechnology companies.

  Delegations
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the changes in the composition of the United Kingdom Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European Union. [73079]

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) and for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) have been appointed as substitute representatives in place of my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) and for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley).

  Genetic Modification
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) on how many occasions he or officials of his Department have (i) spoken with and (ii) received representations regarding genetic modification from Cathy McGlynn of Bell Pottinger; [72061]

  (2) what was the (a) purpose and (b) outcome of the meeting between officials in the No. 10 Policy Unit and representatives of Monsanto; and if he will make a statement; [72243]

  (3) on how many occasions (a) he and (b) officials in his Department have (i) spoken with and (ii) received representations regarding genetic modification from Mr. Stan Greenberg of Greenberg Research; [72246]

  (4) on how many occasions he or officials in his Department have (i) spoken with and (ii) received representations regarding genetic modification from Dave Hill of Bell Pottinger. [72063]

  The Prime Minister
  I and my officials are in regular contact with representatives of all those with an interest in biotechnology—including environmental groups, consumer groups and biotechnology companies. It is not the normal practice of Governments to give details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  County Court Closures
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his policy on county court closures. [70856]

  Mr. Hoon
  In considering the future of any county court, the Lord Chancellor must take into account a variety of factors including accommodation, workload, the number of personal callers, judicial sittings, costs, and the alternative arrangements that could be made for court users after closure.

  House of Lords
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the role of his Department in respect of Government proposals for the future of the House of Lords. [70858]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor has had a prominent role in the formulation of the Government's proposals, as chairman of the Cabinet Committee on House of Lords Reform. I am helping to steer the House of Lords Bill in its passage through this House.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on recent discussions which he has had with the Church of England bishops on proposals for a reformed House of Lords. [70859]

  Mr. Hoon
  Neither I nor the Lord Chancellor has had such discussions.

  Adjudicators
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will reform the system of selecting adjudicators. [70860]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor has no plans to change the present system of selecting Immigration Adjudicators. Immigration Adjudicator posts may be occupied on a full or part-time basis. There are no statutory qualifications for appointment as an Immigration Adjudicator. However, in practice the Lord Chancellor will normally consider only persons who hold a seven year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, who are advocates or solicitors in Scotland, or barristers or solicitors in Northern Ireland, of not less than 7 years' standing. Part-time posts are filled by application and interview following an open advertised competition, save on a few occasions the Lord Chancellor had directly seconded serving Circuit Judges and Recorders on the recommendation of the Chief Immigration Adjudicator, His Honour Judge Dunn QC. Full-time Immigration Adjudicators are normally appointed, following application and interview, from the ranks of those who have gained sufficient experience through service as part-time Immigration Adjudicators or part-time legal members of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.

  Legal Aid
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to publicise his reform of the legal aid system. [70861]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government's planned reforms were first outlined in October 1997. Since then, my Department's and the Legal Aid Board's efforts to publicise them have included numerous speeches; interviews and articles in the national and legal media; consultation papers on various aspects of the reforms; and, most importantly, the White Paper "Modernising Justice", which was published last November. The full text of the White Paper is available on the Internet, and a shortened summary has been widely circulated. In addition, the Explanatory Notes for the Access to Justice Bill are publicly available, and set out details of the Government's intentions for the reformed scheme.

  Information Meeting Pilot
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his assessment of the work of the information meeting pilot for Merseyside and North Wales. [70862]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Merseyside and North Wales Information Meeting pilot is making a valuable contribution to an extensive pilot programme of information meetings. The pilots are being fully and independently evaluated by a research team from the Centre for Family Studies at the University of Newcastle.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made in the fast tracking of young offenders through the magistrates courts. [70857]

  Mr. Hoon
  In the youth court the average number of days from charge or summons to "completion" fell from 87 days in June 1997 to 77 days in June 1998.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1998,Official Report, column 724, if he will list the expenditure not included in his answer incurred (a) by task forces and review bodies, (b) by focus groups, (c) on market research and (d) for publications and publicity; and if he will list the bodies which incurred the expenditure. [71031]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]I am not aware of any such expenditure by task force or review bodies. The review of civil justice and legal aid, by Sir Peter Middleton, was published by the Lord Chancellor's Department in-house print unit.

  Commonhold
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions his Department has had with(a) Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and (b) others on the preparation of a consultation document on the introduction of commonhold. [72313]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have spoken to colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ensure that any possible overlaps between commonhold and the Government's policy on leasehold reform do not obstruct progress.

  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what timetable he has set for public consultation on the introduction of commonhold. [72314]

  Mr. Hoon
  Introducing commonhold is a manifesto objective to which the Government remain strongly committed. We are at present considering how best to consult the public whether by way of a general policy paper or a draft Bill, or both. Once that decision is taken, I will set and publish a timetable for consultation.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average age of a QC on appointment in each of the last five years. [72612]

  Mr. Hoon
  The average age of a QC on appointment in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Age

  1994

  43.8

  1995

  43.8

  1996

  43.9

  1997

  43.6

  1998

  43.5

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the article in The Lawyer magazine of 15 February 1999, indicating that the Bar Council is prepared to meet the cost of administration of the QC system. [72516]

  Mr. Hoon
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has seen the article. He notes that, according to the article, the General Council of the Bar would like to see the costs of processing silk applications being recoverable from all silk applicants. He will continue to review the matter.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will(a) list the public inquiries conducted by (i) Government departments and (ii) local authorities over the last three years which were chaired by QCs, (b) list the name of the QC in each case and (c) indicate the fee paid to the QC for his or her services. [72515]

  Mr. Hoon
  This information is not collected centrally and, therefore, my hon. Friend's question could not be answered without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many QCs have had that distinction withdrawn in each of the last 10 years; and in each case, for what reason. [72613]

  Mr. Hoon
  There has been no occasion in the last ten years when my noble and learned Friend or his immediate predecessor has advised Her Majesty to revoke the award of Queen's Counsel.

  Community Legal Service
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to ensure equality of access to the proposed community legal service for those on low incomes. [70896]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Community Legal Service will be of particular benefit to people with low incomes, as its aim is to improve access to information and help with potential or actual legal problems through developing a comprehensive network of legal service providers of consistently good quality. This network will involve a variety of providers, including lawyers in private practice, Law Centres, Citizens Advice Bureaux, and other advice
  237
  centres, and will look to meet the needs and priorities of the local community, and not simply those currently eligible for civil legal aid.

  Asylum Appeals
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how long on average people who(a) were refused leave to remain in the United Kingdom in (i) March 1997, (ii) June 1997, (iii) September 1997, (iv) December 1997, (v) March 1998 and (vi) June 1998, (1) for a year on the grounds of marriage, (2) indefinitely on grounds of marriage, (3) indefinitely as a child of parents settled here, (4) indefinitely as the parent of children settled here and (5) for a longer period as a student and (b) were refused asylum in the United Kingdom waited between the date of refusal and the date of determination of their appeal by an adjudicator or special adjudicator; and how long he estimates those refused in each category in (x) September 1998, (y) December 1998 and (z) January 1999 will wait; [71795]

  (2) how long, on average, people who were refused entry clearance at a British post abroad in (i) March 1997, (ii) June 1997, (iii) September 1997, (iv) December 1997, (v) March 1998 and (vi) June 1998 (a) to join a British or settled spouse in the UK, (b) to join a British or settled parent in the UK, (c) as the elderly parent of a British or settled adult child in the UK, (d) to come to follow a course of studies for more than six months, waited between the date of lodging the appeal and (1) the appeal papers being sent to the UK and (2) the date of the adjudicator's determination of their appeal; and how long he estimates those refused in each category in (x) September 1998, (y) December 1998 and (z) January 1999 will wait. [71783]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information is available only for the waiting times between asylum refusals and adjudicator appeal determinations. This is given in the table. Based on this information, it is projected that similar cases lodged in September 1998, December 1998 and January 1999, are likely to take approximately seven months.

  I regret that information on the total time period between refusal and the appeal hearing in non-asylum cases could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Average time to appeal determination in asylum refusal cases1, March 1997, June 1997, September 1997, December 1997, March 1998 and June 1998

  Month of asylum decision

  Average time to appeal determination (months)

  March 1997

  8

  June 1997

  8

  September 1997

  9

  December 1997

  8

  March 1998

  6

  June 1998

  5

  1Figures are estimates, based on cases for which information is recorded

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Legal Services
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list(a) the London barristers' chambers and (b) the London solicitors' firms that have performed services for his Department (i) since 1 May 1997 and (ii) in the equivalent period preceding that date, indicating the remuneration paid in each particular case. [70027]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]The information requested is not held centrally and could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  My right hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General appointed Philip Sales as First Junior Treasury Counsel (Common Law) and Jonathan Crow as First Junior Treasury Counsel (Chancery) to advise and represent the government in their important civil cases. In addition, the Attorney-General maintains at present two London panels of junior Counsel whom departments are expected to use for the rest of the government's civil litigation. The panels currently comprise 103 barristers from 42 different sets of chambers. The Attorney-General will shortly appoint a third panel of very junior banisters. The Attorney-General's individual nomination is required before a barrister who is not on one of the approved panels can be instructed to appear for the government in litigation.

  Departments may use firms of solicitors in addition to the Treasury Solicitor and their departmental legal advisers, for example where the relevant expertise lies in the private sector. The relationship is subject to the usual confidentiality which operates between lawyer and client.

  Christian Broadcasters
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what regulations have been introduced which would implicitly exclude Christian broadcasters from the process of obtaining a national radio frequency. [71551]

  Janet Anderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 11 February 1999,Official Report, columns 301–02.

  Beefeaters
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the remuneration of the Beefeaters at the Tower of London. [72221]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]Including rostered overtime and allowances, the total salaries of Yeoman Warders at the Tower of London are typically in the region of £18,000 to £19,000 per annum. They occupy accommodation at the Tower for which they pay 8.5 per cent. of their basic pensionable salary. The Yeoman Warders also have a long established practice of receiving gratuities freely offered by visitors. These gratuities are shared by the Yeoman body, declared to the Inland Revenue and a small percentage is given to charities. This practice is under review.

  KPMG
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the services that KPMG have performed for his Department(a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the corresponding period prior to 1 May 1997, indicating the remuneration made in each case. [72004]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]The services provided by KPMG for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport were as follows:(a) no services for the period 1 May 1997 to date.

  (b) for the corresponding period prior to 1 May

  £

  Performance Appraisal Training

  12,225

  Pay Delegation Consultancy

  9,554

  Research for Benchmarking Small Hotels

  110,673

  Research for Contracting Out Public Libraries

  2,954

  Research for Museums Documentation Association

  12,500

  Review of Broadcasting Standards

  Commission and Broadcasting Complaints Commission

  44,680

  Review of RCHME

  4,406

  Museums, Galleries and Libraries
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to encourage the use of National Lottery funds to help(a) museums, (b) galleries and (c) libraries add to their collections. [72021]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) has already contributed, and will continue to provide, a large amount of capital investment to museums, galleries and libraries. The HLF is currently preparing its strategic plan; funding for the addition of important collections or single objects to museum and gallery collections and the acquisition of library collections of heritage importance will continue to be a significant part of its overall support for the heritage.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that every public library has access to the extensive resources of the National Grid for Learning. The New Opportunities Fund will be providing £70 million to assist in the development of new digital resources and the provision of relevant training for public library staff.

  Number of press releases issued

  Year

  Department

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Treasury1

  86

  107

  153

  140

  162

  185

  187

  184

  239

  Inland Revenue

  170

  240

  173

  271

  252

  270

  235

  138

  168

  Customs and Excise

  88

  77

  62

  76

  52

  62

  59

  37

  31

  Office for National Statistics

  181

  181

  193

  193

  285

  308

  282

  372

  441

  Debt Management Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  231

  National Savings

  51

  51

  57

  49

  44

  47

  47

  57

  68

  Royal Mint3

  13

  6

  6

  18

  10

  7

  20

  27

  23

  Valuation Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  413

  Government Actuary's Department

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Registry5

  5

  6

  9

  10

  11

  18

  9

  17

  6

  National Investment and Loans Office

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1The numbers include press releases issued on Budget and Pre-Budget Report days.

  2The Debt Management Office was launched on 1 April 1998.

  3Includes only press releases issued in the UK.

  4The Valuation Office started issuing its own press releases in April 1998. Before this they were issued by the Inland Revenue.

  5Includes Building Societies Commission and Friendly Societies Commission.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what measures his Department is taking to develop craft skills in the film industry; [72215]

  (2) what plans he has to improve the technical skills base of the film industry; [72219]

  (3) what plans he has to encourage the provision of apprenticeships in the film industry. [72216]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]One of the recommendations made of the Film Policy Review Group was for the formulation of an integrated training strategy for film and a Skills Investment Fund for training made up of voluntary contributions from film production. The training strategy we have now developed includes proposals for new provision for craft skills, the technical skills base and apprenticeships in the film industry. We are currently working towards agreement with the industry on the detail of how the Fund will work and how the training strategy will be implemented.

TREASURY

  Electronic Correspondence
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what difficulties have been encountered with the new electronic correspondence system in his Department; and to what extent they have been resolved. [71732]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]The Treasury, Inland Revenue and Custom and Excise have recently introduced a new electronic correspondence handling system which will strengthen the systems for processing and monitoring ministerial correspondence. The technical problems encountered at the outset have now been tackled.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many press releases have been issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each of the years 1990 to 1998. [71456]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]The information is as follows:
  241
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the conventions governing the propriety and cost of press releases issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies; and what is the total cost of the press releases issued since May 1997. [71471]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]Rules governing the work of the Government Information and Communications Service (GICS) were set out in guidance published by the Cabinet Office in July 1997. More specific guidance on the writing and issuing of press releases is given in the Working Guide for Government Information Officers. Copies of both documents are in the Library of the House.

  Since May 1997 (May 1997-December 1998) the Treasury has been billed a total of £22,819 for the services of the Central Office of Information, which distribute press releases electronically, by fax and by courier service. This figure does not include postage. The same information requested of the Treasury's agencies and non-departmental bodies is not held centrally and could be obtained only a disproportionate cost.

  Media Allegations (Rebuttals)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) those units in his Department and (b) the number of departmental staff which are concerned with preparing rebuttals of allegations in the media; and what is (i) the total cost of their work, including salaries, and (ii) the number of rebuttals issued since May 1997. [71857]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]In common with other departments, the work of press officers in the Treasury includes responding to any misinformed allegations concerning Government policy or activity which are published in the media. They are supported in this work by other officials as necessary.

  Because this is a routine part of a Department's work and it is not separately recorded from other tasks, to provide the further information requested would involve disproportionate cost.

  "Getting Ready for the Euro"
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the second edition of the six monthly report "Getting Ready for the Euro". [72995]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is being published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Fuel Duty
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate the levels of tax payable by way of duty and VAT on the current average price of a litre of(a) unleaded, (b) diesel and (c) leaded fuel in (i) the UK and (ii) each other EU state. [72294]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Essex, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 10 November 1998,Official Report, columns 152–53.
  242
  The levels of tax payable by way of duty and VAT on the current average price of a litre of (a) unleaded, (b) diesel and (c) leaded fuel in (i) the UK and (ii) each other EU state are:

  Pence per litre

  Unleaded petrol

  Standard diesel

  Leaded petrol

  Duty

  VAT

  Duty

  VAT

  Duty

  VAT

  Austria

  29.08

  8.95

  20.33

  6.93

  n/a

  n/a

  Belgium

  35.58

  10.01

  20.35

  6.89

  39.67

  10.92

  Denmark

  31.77

  12.11

  21.59

  8.32

  n/a

  n/a

  Finland

  39.27

  10.76

  21.37

  7.79

  n/a

  n/a

  France

  41.36

  10.52

  26.02

  7.43

  44.28

  11.07

  Germany

  35.15

  7.54

  22.24

  5.37

  25.42

  6.85

  Greece

  22.00

  6.33

  17.73

  5.04

  25.42

  6.85

  Ireland

  26.57

  8.49

  23.16

  8.02

  32.20

  10.16

  Italy

  37.04

  10.28

  27.08

  8.15

  40.27

  10.76

  Luxembourg

  24.37

  4.46

  17.74

  4.40

  28.02

  6.16

  Netherlands

  40.32

  9.66

  23.77

  6.49

  n/a

  n/a

  Portugal

  32.85

  8.06

  19.73

  5.50

  36.07

  8.36

  Spain

  25.61

  6.09

  18.60

  4.95

  27.89

  6.55

  Sweden

  33.18

  12.16

  19.83

  9.41

  n/a

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  43.99

  9.44

  44.99

  9.61

  49.26

  10.43

  The Excise duty rate in the United Kingdom for low sulphur diesel is 42.99 pence per litre, and the VAT on the current average price is 9.76 pence per litre.Rates of excise duty and VAT on low sulphur diesel are not available for the countries of the European Union other than the United Kingdom.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made on the impact of changes to tax relief on travelling and subsistence expenses on the British film industry. [71743]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]The tax rules on employee travel expenses, introduced in April 1998, followed lengthy and thorough public consultations. Since the legislation, the Inland Revenue has had extensive contacts with film industry representatives to provide guidance for the industry on the operation of the new rules.

  Overseas Investment Exchanges
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if United States investment exchanges have applied to be recognised over the past year as overseas investment exchanges in the United Kingdom under sections 37 and 40 of the Financial Services Act 1986. [72996]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Cantor Financial Futures Exchange (CFEE) applied for recognition in September 1998 and, with effect from today, has been granted recognition as an Overseas Investment Exchange, having satisfied the conditions under sections 37 and 40 of the Financial Services Act 1986. CFFE is therefore able to carry out investment business in the UK.

  Married Couples Tax Allowance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Inland Revenue monitors(a) whether customers receiving the married couples tax allowances are living permanently together and if this is required before they receive the married couples tax allowance and (b) if customers receiving the additional personal tax allowance

  243
  in respect of dependent children are living with those children, and if it is a condition of the tax allowance that those claiming it live with such children. [71892]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The married couples allowance is available to a married couple who live together at some time during a year of assessment. A husband and wife are treated as living together for income tax purposes unless they are separated under a court order or by a deed of separation, or they are in fact separated and the separation is likely to remain permanent.

  The additional personal allowance is available to people who are not living with a spouse (or who live with a spouse who is totally incapacitated) and who have one or more qualifying children resident with them at some time during a year of assessment.

  The Inland Revenue treat claims to personal tax allowances in much the same way as other claims to relief, Revenue staff apply risk assessment procedures in order to identify potentially incorrect claims. If the Revenue have a reason to believe that an allowance is being falsely claimed, they have powers to make appropriate inquiries and recover any tax lost.

  Income Tax (Construction Industry)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the tax deducted from annual earnings in each £2,000 band between £10,000 and £30,000 by tax paying sub-contractors and individual craft workers in the construction industry. [69745]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The available data for 1997–98 are not yet of sufficient quality to yield estimates in such detail. The following estimates are for each £5,000 band of annual turnover.

  Gross annual turnover of sole trade business

  Total amount deducted, 1997–98 (£ million)

  £10,000 to 15,000

  240

  £15,001 to 20,000

  240

  £20,001 to 25,000

  130

  £25,001 to 30,000

  60

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the average annual expenses claimed against taxable gross earnings of £25,000 by tax paying sub-contractors and individual craft workers in the construction industry. [69746]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the tax year 1996–97 the average value of annual allowable expenses (including materials) plus capital allowances claimed by a subcontractor with annual turnover of £25,000 was about £10,600.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will calculate(a) the tax deductible and (b) the tax payable for a sub-contracting carpenter/joiner with a turnover of £25,129, work expenses of £6,799 and personal pension payments of £3,470. [69747]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The maximum amount deductible on account of income tax and Class 4 national insurance contributions would be £5,780, depending on the amount of work outside the Construction Industry Scheme 244
  included in the turnover figure, and on the amount of expenses classified as materials for the purposes of the Scheme.

  Assuming that only the single person's allowance is claimed and that tax relief is available on the whole of the personal pension contribution the liability to income tax and Class 4 national insurance contributions for the 1998–99 tax year would be £2,972.

  If the deductions exceed the liability to income tax and Class 4 national insurance contribution then the individual can claim a repayment of the excess. If the business accounting period end date is early in the tax year, it should be possible to obtain some or all of this repayment within the tax year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of tax paying sub-contractors and individual craft workers earning less than £30,000 per annum to be included in the new tax system for the construction industry. [69744]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that, very roughly, half a million individual subcontractors will be issued with registration cards (and paid with deductions on account of income tax and Class 4 national insurance contributions) under the new Construction Industry Scheme. This broadly equates to those remaining in the scheme and who have annual turnovers (less materials) of under £30,000.

  A more exact assessment is not possible because of the large number of formerly self-employed subcontractors who have moved into employment, and because of uncertainty about how many other individuals will decide to apply for registration cards.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total expenditure on the working families tax credit in Portsmouth in its first year of operation. [69689]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that such estimates are not available.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of family credit recipients will not be eligible for increased credit under the working families tax credit programme. [69753]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All family credit recipients will also be eligible for working families tax credit. Working families tax credit is more generous and will have a higher income threshold, and a slower taper than family credit. In addition, it will include a new childcare tax credit, which will provide up to 70 per cent. of eligible childcare costs up to maximum costs of £100 per week for one child and £150 per week for two or more children.

  No family credit recipients will receive less under working families tax credit. Seventy-five per cent. of family credit recipients will gain.

  Computerisation Projects
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many IT computerisation projects his Department has commissioned from the private sector; on which dates
  245
  they were commissioned; what was the expenditure on such projects to date; and what was the termination date of the projects. [71785]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury has commissioned two IT computerisation projects from the private sector since the start of this Administration. The two systems are:

  (i) an upgrade to the Ministerial Correspondence System which was commissioned in November 1997; and

  (ii) a new Financial Information System, the underlying system for the Public Expenditure Survey information. This project was commissioned in January 1998.

  The two projects are still ongoing. The precise costs of the contracts cannot be given for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  An IT computerisation project commissioned from the private sector has been taken to be one in which the software has been specifically written to address the particular needs of the Department. As such it excludes the purchase of small, general-purpose software packages.

  Expenditure (Scotland)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will(a) estimate the total spending on housing within the Scottish Block in each year from 1994–95 to 2000–2001 in (i) current and (ii) constant 1998–99 prices, (b) estimate the annual percentage change (i) for each of these categories and (ii) in total, (c) estimate (i) the cumulative change and (ii) in total between the years 1994–95 and 2000–2001 and between the years 1996–97 and 2000–2001 and (d) estimate the same as requested in (a) (b) and (c) for the housing expenditure in England; [71773]

  (2) if he will (a) estimate the total spending (i) by main category of expenditure and (ii) in total, across each of the main categories of the Scottish Block as determined by the Block and Barnett Formula arrangement in each year from 1994–95 to 2000–2001 in (1) current and (2) constant 1998–99 prices, (b) estimate the annual percentage change for (i) each of these categories and (ii) in total, (c) estimate the cumulative change (i) for each category and (ii) in total between the years 1994–95 and 2000–2001 and between the years 1996–97 and
  246
  2000–2001 and (d) estimate the same as requested in (a)(b) and (c) for the equivalent expenditure categories in England that form the basis for the determination of the Barnett Formula calculation, (i) for those categories that are available, (ii) and in total; [71772]

  (3) if he will (a) estimate the total spending on health across the Scottish Block as determined by the Block and Barnett Formula arrangement in each year from 1994–95 to 2000–2001 in (i) current and (i) constant 1998–99 prices, (b) estimate the annual percentage change (i) for each of these categories and (ii) in total, (c) estimate the cumulative change (i) for each category and (ii) in total between the years 1994–95 and 2000–2001 and between the years 1996–97 and 2000–2001 and (d) estimate the same as requested in (a) (b) and (c) for the equivalent health expenditure in England. [71774]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested by the hon. Member on total spending on health, housing and other main categories of the Scottish Block for the years 1994–95 to 1998–99 can be derived from data in the Scottish Office Departmental Report, published in April 1998 (Cm 3914). The allocation of expenditure to these programmes for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 14 July 1998,Official Report, columns 138–42; my right hon. Friend provided further information on allocations to programmes to the hon. Member on 10 November 1998, Official Report, columns 157–58. Further details will be available in the 1999 Scottish Office Departmental Report to be published at the end of March. Relative levels of spending on programmes funded by the Scottish Block are determined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. From 1 July 1999 decisions on the allocation of expenditure will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Comparative data for public spending levels in England and Scotland were published in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) 1998–99 (cm 3901) in April 1998. New estimates up to 1997–98 will be published in PESA 1999–2000 at the end of March. The Reports of the Department of Health, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and other relevant departmental reports giving details of planned spending for 2000–01 and beyond will also be published at the end of March.

HEALTH

  Health Authority Wages
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 28 January 1999,Official Report, columns 324–26, on average wages, if he will list the actual average wage paid by each of the London health authorities in each year since 1995. [68962]

  Mr. Denham
  The precise information requested is not collected centrally. Information is collected about the annual total salaries and wages paid to National Health Service staff each year, and the number of directly employed staff at a single point in time, for example, 30 September. Workforce figures for individual health authority areas are not available centrally for 1995. The table uses these two pieces of information to produce estimates of average wages. These estimates should be interpreted with caution for the following reasons.

  NHS trusts and health authorities

  Directly employed staff salaries and wages and estimated average wages 1 by London health authority areas

  Health authority area

  Directly employed staff (wte)

  Salaries and wages (£000)

  Estimated average wage (per annum)

  1996–97

  Barking and Havering

  4,608

  96,266

  20,889

  Barnet

  3,789

  79,334

  20,936

  Bexley and Greenwich

  5,311

  110,701

  20,842

  Brent and Harrow

  5,948

  117,791

  19,804

  Bromley

  5,118

  104,245

  20,368

  Camden and Islington

  17,540

  369,425

  21,062

  Croydon

  3,395

  66,743

  19,659

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  5,364

  108,299

  20,192

  East London and The City

  12,436

  268,131

  21,561

  Enfield and Haringey

  5,272

  112,209

  21,285

  Hillingdon

  4,680

  97,211

  20,770

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  15,147

  328,182

  21,666

  Kingston and Richmond

  1,512

  32,597

  21,557

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  15,434

  330,654

  21,423

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  12,869

  271,615

  21,106

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  5,616

  113,241

  20,166

  1997–98

  Barking and Havering

  4,827

  97,763

  20,254

  Barnet

  3,459

  76,098

  21,998

  Bexley and Greenwich

  5,639

  121,194

  21,493

  Brent and Harrow

  5,487

  118,766

  21,645

  Bromley

  4,786

  99,729

  20,836

  Camden and Islington

  17,174

  386,822

  22,524

  Croydon

  3,411

  69,420

  20,350

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  5,341

  113,881

  21,322

  East London and The City

  12,056

  274,455

  22,766

  Enfield and Haringey

  5,524

  119,628

  21,655

  Hillingdon

  4,724

  100,579

  21,293

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  15,156

  338,777

  22,352

  Kingston and Richmond

  1,617

  34,215

  21,155

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  15,343

  349,159

  22,757

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  13,459

  282,342

  20,978

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  5,378

  114,796

  21,344

  1Estimates are based on total annual salaries and wages divided by directly employed staff (whole-time equivalents) as at 30 September each year and so need to be interpreted with caution.

  wte = whole time equivalent

  Mental Health Services
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what joint finance moneys and project funding are being provided to district health authorities and local authority services by his Department in the current year to improve the range and quality of day care and other facilities for the mentally ill. [72584]
  248
  The number of staff employed by individual organisations will change over the course of a year. These changes are not reflected in the point in time estimate for workforce numbers, but are reflected in the total annual salaries and wages.

  The coverage of the workforce numbers and salaries and wages differ slightly. For example, the costs of non-executive board members and non-nursing staff on short-term, flexible contracts who work on an "as and when" basis are included in the salaries and wages figures, but are excluded from the workforce figures.

  The figures collected by the Department for individual NHS trusts and health authorities were collected to provide national estimates and were validated accordingly. For example, small inaccuracies in the figures for individual organisations may not have been identified.

  Mr. Hutton
  Over £84.5 million in joint finance moneys and project funding are being provided to health authorities and local authority services by the Department in the current year to improve the range and quality of day care and other facilities for mentally ill people.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expenditure has been authorised in(a) the current and (b) the next financial year in each health

  249
  region for improved mental health training for general practitioners and others responsible for providing primary care; and if he will make a statement. [72586]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information requested is not available centrally. In 1999–2000, £146 million extra funding will be invested in mental health services of which £12 million will provide additional support for education and training of doctors and nurses. This will include those working in primary health care.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the Performance Assessment Framework for Personal Social Services promised in the White Paper, Modernising Health and Social Services. [72898]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health has today published the consultation document ANew Approach to Social Services Performance setting out the details of our proposals for a new Performance Assessment Framework for social services and an associated set of 46 performance indicators. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  The Framework and its indicators will help Government, Councils and local people to assess how well local social services are performing. Councils and Government will be able to use the framework and the indicators to identify areas of possible good practice and areas where improvement is required.

  We are redefining and strengthening our approach to social services performance to improve the Department of Health's capacity to assess performance and to put in place the necessary structures to support Best Value in social services. The Performance Assessment Framework is one part of this. We will build upon the success of the Social Services Inspectorate (SSI) Inspection programme and the SSI/Audit Commission Joint Reviews and enhance the performance role of the Regional Offices of the SSI.

  A New Approach to Social Services Performance describes these new arrangements and how they will help to ensure Best Value is delivered in social services.

DEFENCE

  Logistics Targets
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what targets he intends to set in the logistics area for the rationalisation of functions and processes on a defence-wide basis. [72049]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Chief of Defence Logistics will, from 1 April 1999, take financial and management responsibility for the three Service logistics organisations. He will contribute to the SDR targets for reductions in the value of stockholdings and the rationalisation of purchasing procedures. How he will achieve rationalisation will not be the subject of separate 250
  targets. During the transition to a unified logistics organisation by April 2000, CDL will develop defence-wide logistics targets for delivering outputs.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Strategic Defence Review, what criteria are to be set for(a) the Chief of Defence Logistics and (b) the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency for realising the benefits of SMART procurement in the logistics area. [72048]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Under the Smart Procurement Initiative, the Chief of Defence Logistics (CDL) will be creating Integrated Project Teams exactly as the Defence Procurement Agency will be doing. This will deliver support to in-service equipment and contribute to the overall savings for Smart Procurement Initiative. Each project team will be set performance targets. The criteria for these targets are still being developed. There are no specific procurement related targets for the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency.

  Defence Research Committee
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the Defence Research Committee has met since 1 January 1998; and if he will place in the Library a list of items discussed at each of these meetings. [71959]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since 1 January 1998 the Defence Research Committee has met twice, on 31 March 1998 and on 16 November 1998. I will place a list of items discussed on each occasion in the Library of the House.

  Joint Force 2000 Initiative
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further progress has been made on the development of the Joint Force 2000 initiative; and if he will make a statement. [72992]

  Mr. George Robertson
  On 19 October 1998,Official Report, column 979, I announced that we would be forming the joint Royal Navy/Royal Air Force Harrier force to be known as Joint Force 2000. Since last October, work has continued on the organisational changes necessary to take forward the Joint Force 2000 initiative. I can confirm that the new Headquarters will form in RAF Strike Command on 1 April next year under the command of a Rear Admiral. This Headquarters will be located at RAF High Wycombe. He will have two subordinate force commanders, both of whom will be RAF Air Commodores, one of whom will command the combined Harrier force, Joint Force 2000, and the other the RAF's existing forces of Nimrod Maritime Patrol aircraft and Search and Rescue helicopters. As importantly, we have also decided, subject to a period of consultation with Trades Unions and other interested parties which begins today, that the RN's Sea Harrier force, currently based at RNAS Yeovilton, will join the RAF's Harrier force at RAF Cottesmore and RAF Wittering in 2003.

  We see the collocation of the existing Harrier fleets as realising significant operational benefits and as a practical and symbolic step toward the creation of a truly joint

  251
  force. For the longer term, and when the Joint Force is re-equipped with the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft, we have identified RAF Cottesmore as its most suitable home. We are making real progress on the development and creation of Joint Force 2000 and we are doing it significantly earlier than originally anticipated. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the two Services concerned for their far-sighted and constructive attitude which has made this possible.

  Courts Martial
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel court martialled in the last 10 years,(a) had joined the armed forces before their eighteenth birthdays, (b) were aged under 21 years at the time of the offence and (c) had applied unsuccessfully for discharge. [72615]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Military Corrective Training Centre
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of detainees at the Military Corrective Training Centre, Colchester are held for offences covered only by military law with no civilian equivalent. [72614]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Of the 114 detainees held at the Military Corrective Training Centre on 19 February 1999, 55 (48.25 per cent.) were being held for offences covered only by military law, such as absence without leave, desertion, and disobeying a lawful command.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department publish(a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of members' interests; and whether in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69832]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 10 February 1999]The Development Awareness Working Group publishes the agenda, documents for, and minutes of its meetings and maintains a register of members' interests. There are no statutory requirements for it to do so.

  There are no statutory requirements for the publication of documents or maintenance of a register of members' interests, and this is not done, in respect of:

  The Overseas Services Pensions Scheme Advisory Board

  The Indian Family Pensions Funds Body of Commissioners

  The Know How Fund Advisory Board

  The Advisory Committee on Overseas Economic and Social Research.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance was made available in 1998 to other countries for land mine clearance in those countries; and if she will make a statement. [72558]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) has committed over £6.2 million to humanitarian mine action, to date, in 1998–99. Clearance projects account for the major part of this programme.

  DFID's progress report on humanitarian mine action for 1998 and its future plans will be published on 1 March, marking the passing into international law of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Landmines and on their Destruction.

  Ambassadors for British Business
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the role of Ambassadors for British Business in the work of her Department; and how many such Ambassadors she has met since 1 May 1997. [72289]

  Clare Short
  My Department has begun to consult widely and developed new working relationships with the business community, both in-country and in the UK since 1997. As we make clear in our Development White Paper, business has a strong interest in successful development and the sustainable economic growth necessary to reduce poverty requires a thriving private sector. We consult through established business groups rather than on a company by company basis. I have so far met with six of the thirty-six Ambassadors for British Business to discuss areas of particular interest to my Department's objectives.

  Agricultural Biotechnology
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money her Department has spent supporting the research and development of agricultural biotechnology since 1 May
  1997. [72069]

  Clare Short
  Figures are not available in the form requested. My Department supports agricultural research which aims to generate benefits for poor people in developing countries by applying new knowledge to the management of their natural resources. Many forms of biotechnology are used as tools in this research but separate data are not maintained on their cost. Since May 1997 expenditure on agricultural research projects with some biotechnology content is estimated to be about £20 million. Expenditure over the same period on projects which involve genetic modification is estimated to be about £1.2 million.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposals she has to
  253
  change the 1998–2000 External Financing Limit for the Commonwealth Development Corporation. [73221]

  Clare Short
  The External Financing Limit for CDC or 1998/99 will be reduced by £15,200 from zero to minus £15,200,000. This reduction takes account of an upward adjustment made last year to allow CDC increased borrowing in early 1998.

CABINET OFFICE

  Legal Services
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list(a) the London banisters' chambers and (b) the London solicitors' firms that have performed services for his Department (i) since 1 May 1997 and (ii) in the equivalent period preceding that date, indicating the remuneration paid in each particular case. [70026]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]The Department has spent £1,552,559 on legal advice since 1 May 1997. The detailed information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General appointed Philip Scales as First Junior Treasury Counsel (Common Law) and Jonathan Crow as First Junior Treasury Counsel (Chancery) to advise and represent the Government in their important civil cases. In addition, the Attorney-General maintains at present two London panels of junior Counsel whom Departments are expected to use for the rest of Government's civil litigation. The panels currently comprise 103 banisters from 42 different sets of chambers. The Attorney-General will shortly appoint a third panel of very junior banisters. The Attorney-General's individual nomination is required before a barrister who is not on one of the approved panels can be instructed to appear for the Government in litigation.

  Departments may use firms of solicitors in addition to the Treasury Solicitor and their departmental legal advisers, for example, where the relevant expertise lies in

  Reports

  Reviews:

  Review of the Code of practice

  No reports published

  on Access to Government information

  Review of the Charter Programme

  Service First—the new charter programme' (30 June 1998) and 'The Citizen's Charter—A consultation exercise: the Government's response' (30 June 1998)

  The Export Promotions Review

  The Review of Export Promotion (8 January 1999)

  Review of Quangos

  Quangos Opening The Doors (June 1998)

  Review of Existing Drugs Strategy

  White Paper Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain, Cmnd 3945

  Review of the Women's National Commission

  Report of the Review of the WNC (15 January 1999)

  Review of the Buying Agency

  Due to report early summer 1999

  Review of the Government Information Service

  Report of the Working Group on the Government Information Service (November) 1997)

  Task Forces:

  Better Regulation Task Force

  Long Term Care (May 1998)

  Consumer Affairs (May 1998)

  Early Education and Day Care (July 1998)

  Access to funding for the Voluntary Sector (July 1998)

  Licensing Legislation (July 1998)

  Annual Report (September 1998)

  Modernising Government Quality Schemes Task Force

  No reports published

  254
  the private sector. The relationship is subject to the usual confidentiality which operates between lawyer and client.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the parliamentary constituencies which he has visited in an official capacity in the past 12 months. [71339]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]The following constituencies have been visited in an official capacity either by my predecessor or me between 1 January 1998 and 5 February 1999:Wansbeck; Cambridge; Manchester, Central; Bristol, West; Carlisle; Edinburgh, Central; Torbay; Lancaster & Wyre; Workington; Copeland; Cheadle; and Stockport.

  Additionally, a number of constituencies in central and inner London were visited in the course of ministerial duties.

  Policy Discussions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will invite all hon. Members to recommend policy areas for detailed discussions using the Joint Consultative Committee mechanism. [71636]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I am always happy to consider suggestions from hon. Members.

  Departmental Reviews
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what(a) reviews, (b) task forces and (c) advisory groups have been established by his Department since 1 May 1997; what costs they have incurred to date; and what reports they have published. [71519]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The reviews, task forces and advisory groups, which have been established by my Department since 1 May 1997 and reports they have published are as follows.

  The costs incurred could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.
  255

  Reports

  Advisory groups:

  Security Vetting Appeals Panel

  No reports published

  The People's Panel Advisory Group

  No reports published

  Charter Mark Judging Panel

  No reports published

  The Interchange Steering Council

  No reports published

  Open Government Initiative
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the total number of releases under the open Government initiative. [73167]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The latest number of records released under the open Government initiative now stands at over 96,000 and relates to releases up to the end of September 1998. This represents an increase of about 13 per cent. over the previous total of over 85,000 which was announced by my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. Clark) on 22 December 1997,Official Report, column 394, and related to the total figure as at the end of September 1997.

WALES

  Legal Services
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the London barristers' chambers and (b) the London solicitors' firms that have performed services for his Department (i) since 1 May 1997 and (ii) in the equivalent period preceding that date, indicating the remuneration paid in each particular case. [70039]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]Welsh Office records indicate that during the years in question the following London barristers' chambers have been instructed directly by the Welsh Office or via the Treasury Solicitor's Office:

  Breams Buildings

  1 Sergeants Inn

  Essex Street

  1 Grays Inn Square

  11 Kings Bench Walk

  2 Hare Court

  Monkton Court.

  There may also be other chambers who have been instructed by Treasury Solicitor's Office on behalf of the Welsh Office but for whom records are not readily available in the Welsh Office.

  No London Solicitors' firms have been instructed by or on behalf of the Welsh Office during the past four years. The Welsh Office does not maintain a central continuous record of fees paid to Counsel over the four year period. The Treasury Solicitor's Department does not have such a record either.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General appointed Philip Sales as first Junior Treasury Counsel (Common Law) and Jonathan Crow as First Junior Treasury Counsel (Chancery) to advise and represent the Government in their important civil cases. In addition, the Attorney-General maintains at present two London panels of junior Counsel whom Departments are expected
  256
  to use for the rest of the Government's civil litigation. The panels currently comprise 103 barristers from 42 different sets of chambers. The Attorney-General will shortly appoint a third panel of very junior barristers. The Attorney-General's individual nomination is required before a barrister who is not one of the approved panels can be instructed to appear for the Government in litigation.

  Departments may use firms of solicitors in addition to the Treasury Solicitor and their departmental legal advisers, for example where the relevant expertise lies in the private sector. The relationship is subject to the usual confidentiality which operates between lawyer and client.

  Open Countryside
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much land held by his Department he estimates would fall within the definition of open country as set out in the consultation document "Access to the Open Countryside" of February 1998. [71635]

  Mr. Michael
  The estimated total area of land held by my Department and falling within the definition of open countryside as set out in the consultation document is 300 acres (122 Ha).

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to report on the performance of training and enterprise councils in Wales. [73080]

  Mr. Hain
  I am pleased to announce that the first annual report on Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) in Wales, covering the 1997–98 financial year, is being published today.

  This report represents a significant step forward in explaining the work of TECs, and in making them more accountable to the people of Wales and their elected representatives.

  The report notes that an increasing number of young people entered the Modern Apprenticeship Programme in 1997–98—723 more than in the previous year and 18 per cent. more than the target for the year. Youth credit starts, at 17,265, were 15 per cent. above target, although decreasing levels of unemployment resulted in only 9,001 adults starting on the Training for Work programme against a target of 11,456. NVQs per 100 leavers rose from 55 per cent. to 57 per cent. for the youth training programmes and from 38 per cent. to 44 per cent. for the adult training programmes, by comparison with 1996–97. 52 per cent. of the adult trainees found jobs on leaving training as compared with 48 per cent. the year before.
  257
  Support was given to 1,648 new business start ups (an increase of 10 per cent. on 1996–97) and the Sole Traders Initiative, which was launched on an all-Wales basis at the start of the year, resulted in some 293 first employees being taken on by hitherto singleton businesses.

  Other significant achievements by the TECs in 1997–98 included:
  the levering in of some £1 million of private sector funding—and some £2.8 million of European funding for local projects.
  a good start to the implementation of the Action Plan for Manufacturing Training in Wales
  significant improvements in the rates of success of disabled young people and young people from ethnic minorities in achieving NVQs.
  60,403 school children undertook a work experience placement, against a target of 59,396.
  4,214 school teachers and further education college staff undertook an industrial placement, against a target of 3,068.
  27,000 adults were provided with careers information under the Adult Guidance Initiative and 7,858 of these were given bespoke counselling.

  In addition, the TECs supported a wide variety of projects from their Local Initiative Funds, including homework clubs, revision weeks, Saturday clubs offering contacts with local businesses, outreach work with disaffected young people and technician training to NVQ level 4 for adults in employment.

  The report provides a synopsis of all these activities and of the overall financial position of TECs in Wales. Copies will be distributed to all Members with constituencies in Wales and placed in the Library of the House. Further details are to be found in the individual annual reports of each of the TECs which are available from their company offices.

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

  Departmental Asset Sales
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 11 February 1999,Official Report, column 400, on Departmental asset sales, if he will list the location and previous use of the cottage sold by Cadw; and if he will make a statement. [71985]

  Mr. Michael
  This sale relates to two properties—21 and 23 Rosehill Street, Conwy. No. 21 was acquired in 1968, No. 23 acquired in 1969. The properties were subsequently converted into one unit to provide mess facilities and works depot to Cadw's workstaff.

  On completion of works in the area, the property was declared surplus and sold through agents, Beresford Adams. The sale was completed on 18 April 1997.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  United Nations Act 1946
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will introduce measures to amend the United Nations Act 1946 so that delegated legislation made under section 1 is subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament; [71824]
  258
  (2) if he will introduce measures to amend the United Nations Act 1946 so that any sanctions order approved by a Minister of his Department is brought to the attention of the Foreign Affairs Committee. [71823]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are considering our response to the Recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Committee contained in their Second Report HC 116. This includes the recommendation that the United Nations Act 1946 be amended so that delegated legislation made under section 1 is subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament, and that any sanctions Order approved by an FCO Minister is brought specifically to the attention of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Government will address this in the formal response that they will be submitting to Parliament.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the changes to(a) communication procedures and (b) intelligence procedures made in response to the Legg report. [71838]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have acted on Sir Thomas Legg's recommendations. Guidance has been issued on communications with Ministers when overseas: these include ensuring that papers needing immediate attention are sent to Ministers when they are travelling and that time is built into Ministers' schedules abroad to deal with urgent papers from the UK. Guidance has also been issued to ensure that if more than one Minister needs to be aware of a paper it is specifically drawn to each Minister's attention. News Departments have clear guidelines to avoid using press lines that are misleading or incomplete. Procedures are also in place to ensure that reports received out of hours from the Ministry of Defence are correctly received, logged and distributed.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Liberia about the breaching of the UN arms embargo on Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [71817]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have on several occasions expressed our deep concern to the Liberian Government that shipments of arms have been made to Sierra Leone in breach of the UN Arms Embargo. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised this matter with the Liberian Foreign Minister on 4 February, and has sent strong personal messages to President Taylor demanding that he withdrew support for the rebel forces.

  It is of vital importance for peace and security in the region that the arms embargoes on both Sierra Leone and Liberia are fully implemented. We will continue to support regional organisations in their efforts to address threats to stability in the region.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what disciplinary action he is taking against his Department's employees who have been criticised in the recent Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone (HC 116 of Session 1998–99). [71830]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the House on 27 July 1999,Official Report, columns 19—34.
  259
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will respond to the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone (HC 116 of Session 1998–99). [71818]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Shortly.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what statements, relating to matters contained in the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone and his response to that report, were released by representatives of his Department to the media prior to the publication of the report; and if he will place in the Library copies of these statements. [71836]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My office received in the second week of January a copy of a draft of the report. Shortly before the publication of the report, and at around the same time as leaks critical of FCO officials appeared in The Independent, Financial Times and The Times (on 5 and 6 February), we were also made aware of certain key conclusions of the report.

  Neither I nor any FCO Minister, official or special adviser took any action to publish or disclose any part of any version of the report; or to interfere with the Committee's deliberations or the report's preparation. In advance of the publication of the report on 9 February, we made no comment to the media about the report, except in response to leaks by others to the press.

  Copies of the report—embargoed until publication at 10.00—were released to officials from the Parliamentary Relations Department of the FCO at 0800 on 9 February. I was immediately sent a copy. An FCO spokesman subsequently briefed the press orally, under the same embargo, on my initial response to the report. After publication of the report, the FCO News Department released copies to the press of a minute from me to the Permanent Under-Secretary. A copy of that minute has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will publish the texts of the press briefings he or his Department gave on 8 February and before 8 am on 9 February relating to the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone; [72601]

  (2) if (a) he, (b) other departmental Ministers or (c) his officials have ever had access to (i) a draft report, (ii) a list of tabled amendments or (iii) other unpublished committee documents relating to the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone; [72604]

  (3) on what date and at what time (a) he, (b) other departmental Ministers and (c) his officials first had access to the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone. [72602]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave today to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) on what date and at what time he, a ministerial colleague, a special adviser or departmental official were first shown a copy of the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on Sierra
  Leone; [72277]
  260
  (2) if he, a ministerial colleague, special adviser or departmental official were shown (i) a draft of or (ii) amendments to the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on Sierra Leone; [72275]

  (3) what information from the Foreign Affairs Committee's (a) report and (b) draft report on Sierra Leone was given to (i) him, (ii) a ministerial colleague, (iii) a special adviser or (iv) a departmental official before 8 am on Tuesday 9 February. [72276]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave today to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes within his Department(a) were made following the publication of the Legg Report and (b) he proposes to make following the publication of the second report 1998–99 of the Foreign Affairs Committee (HC 116). [71877]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have acted on the recommendations in the Legg Report. This action includes new procedures to improve communications inside the FCO; new guidelines for contracts with private military companies; new arrangements for the handling of intelligence; and a set of measures targeted at the rigorous enforcement of sanctions. A wider programme of modernisation involving sixty separate initiatives has also been launched.

  We are considering our response to the recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Committee contained in their Second Report HC 116. The Government will be submitting their formal response to Parliament.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to establish why the error in the minute of a Meeting held on 3 December 1997 was never reported to Sir Thomas Legg. [71878]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The error referred to, the abbreviation in one sentence of the minutes of what was said at the 3 December 1997 meeting, was drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in December 1998. Sir Thomas Legg was informed that month. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary drew the Foreign Affairs Committee's attention to this abbreviation in his evidence to the Committee on 16 December 1998.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of those officials in his Department named in the Second Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 1998–99 (HC 116) have been promoted since 1 January 1998. [71879]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Of the eleven officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office named in the Report, five have been promoted since 1 January 1998.

  Disciplinary Actions
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the instances
  261
  from 1 May 1997 to date where his Department has taken disciplinary actions against employees and the reasons for those actions. [71831]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Forty-four employees have been disciplined since 1 May 1997. Questions of staff discipline are matters of confidence between employer and employee. It would be wrong to breach confidence by giving further details.

  Mr. Peter Penfold
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has investigated the delay in providing Mr. Penfold with secure communications equipment after his move to Conakry; and what factors underlay the delay. [71815]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Mr. Penfold arrived in Conakry on 5 June 1997. He discussed his communications needs with the FCO on 11 June. Equipment enabling him to send and receive material marked "restricted" was sent to Conakry on 26 June 1997, arriving on 7 July. For security reasons, the equipment needed to be housed in a protective steel cabinet. The slight delay arose from the need to assemble the various components (some of which had been returned for repair from other posts) and test them before dispatch.

  Mr. Penfold has said that staff in Conakry at that time, after consulting him decided not to use the equipment as it was too large for the hotel room. Mr. Penfold and his staff continued to use the commercial facilities available in the hotel.

  Ministerial Briefings
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms exist within his Department to ensure ministers are properly briefed for parliamentary debates. [71832]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Revised Guidance covering the need to brief Ministers fully was circulated to all FCO Departments in July 1998.

  UN Arms Embargoes
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that UN arms embargoes will be agreed to by the UK only if he determines the authorising resolution to be clear and unambiguous. [71822]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Kingdom works actively in the Security Council to ensure that resolutions relating to arms embargoes are clear and unambiguous.

  Secure Communications Equipment
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's policy of providing secure communications equipment to diplomatic missions forced to relocate through war or natural disasters. [71814]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are considering our response to the Recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Committee contained in their Second Report HC116. This includes the recommendation that all appropriate steps are taken to ensure that overseas posts are fully and properly supported in future if obliged to move temporarily from 262
  their normal office premises. The Government will address this in the formal Response that they will be submitting to Parliament.

  Working Hours
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of his officials working in the United Kingdom have worked more than(a) 50 hours, (b) 60 hours, (c) 70 hours and, (d) 80 hours in any one working week since 1 May 1997. [71835]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Department does not have this information.

  Select Committees
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish his Department's guidelines for co-operating with select committees. [71821]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office follows the guidance on Departmental Evidence and Response to Select Committees circulated by the Cabinet Office in January 1997. Copies are in the Libraries of the House.

  Working Time Directive
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the impact on employment levels in his Department of compliance with the Working Time Directive. [71816]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Department will study the operational impact of the Directive and of the Working Time Regulations 1998 once their effect on working patterns becomes clear.

  Military Companies
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish his Department's rules on contacts with military companies(a) as they were at 1 January 1998 and (b) as amended in line with his press release of 9 February 1999. [71837]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Prior to 24 July 1998, there were no general requirements for Foreign Office officials to record contacts with private military companies. The guidelines introduced on 24 July were intended for internal use only pending preparation of more detailed guidance in consultation with other Government Departments.

  We intend to make this revised guidance available to Parliament and to companies or individuals who request it.

  East Timor and Indonesia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of his discussion with the Indonesian Government on issues of the human rights in(a) East Timor and
  (b) Indonesia. [72232]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: During my visits to Jakarta last year I stressed our commitment to the process of political reform and support for the changes that have taken place in Indonesia since

  263
  May 1998. There have also been other positive developments (progress in the negotiations over East Timor, political prisoner releases, trade union reform and greater freedom of expression), but we remain concerned about the overall human rights situation in Indonesia and East Timor. Last October we arranged a Human Rights Workshop in Jakarta, whose participants included Indonesian Ministers, members of the armed forces, NGOs, academics and human rights activists. We continue to work for practical progress. We are looking at ways in which we can further assist democratic change in Indonesia.

  KPMG
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the services that KPMG have performed for his Department(a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the corresponding period prior to 1 May 1997, indicating the remuneration made in each case. [72008]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: KPMG provided the FCO with the following Consultancy Services in July 1996:

  (i) A study on pension compensation for DS spouses. Total remuneration paid £37,600;

  (ii) FCO Pay and Grading Review, Review of Specialist Salaries. Total remuneration paid £8,225.

  No Consultancy Services have been provided since 1 May 1997.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what practical measures he proposes to support the electoral process in Nigeria. [72897]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We fully support the democratic process in Nigeria. The FCO and DfID have spent around £900,000 on projects to support the electoral process.

  The FCO have funded a BBC World Service project on responsible journalism and voter education. We are working with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to provide training for the new political parties and politicians. We have helped pay the cost of freighting ballot papers to Nigeria.

  We have funded a Commonwealth team which has provided training to electoral officials. With the UN and EU, we are providing observers to the National Assembly and Presidential elections on 20 and 27 February.

  DfID involvement has covered a wide number of projects. These include: a Commonwealth Local Government Forum observer mission; training for up to 1,200 local election monitors; a seminar to discuss the draft constitution; and the production of a manual for polling officials.

  China
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the human rights advances which have followed the introduction of his policy of constructive engagement with the Chinese Government. [72242]
  264
  Mr. Fatchett
  Since the UK/China human rights dialogue was established in September 1997, and the EU/China human rights dialogue resumed in October 1997, China has taken several positive steps. These include signature of two international covenants and agreement to report to the UN under those covenants in respect of Hong Kong. It has received visits by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, as well as allowing a visit to Tibet by EU Troika Ambassadors. It has also extended an invitation to visit to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. We have been able to discuss issues of serious concern including the death penalty, religion, Tibet and individual cases. China has begun to collaborate with the UK and EU on human rights cooperation programmes, which include projects in the areas of Civil and Political as well as Economic and Social rights, and has hosted two EU/China legal affairs seminars and a seminar on the rights of women.

  Spanish Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated value of fish caught by Spanish vessels fishing in British waters, out to 200 miles or the median line, in the last year for which figures are available. [71698]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not available in the form requested. Under the Common Fisheries Policy, Member States are required to collect data only on the activities of their own vessels or in relation to other landings in their ports. In addition, catch information is required only by species and by ICES statistical areas, which may cover the waters of several countries.

  Furthermore, TACs and quotas are set by ICES areas, rather than by reference to national zones. Spanish vessels do not have access to all waters within British fishery limits.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Welfare Reform
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place the responses to the Green Paper "A New Contract for Welfare" in the Library. [71101]

  Mr. Darling
  Lists of those organisations and academics who responded to our consultation papers, excluding those who requested confidentiality, have been placed in the House Library. Copies of their responses are available on request from the Department.

  The Library advises that it is not standard procedure for them to hold such responses. The Department will willingly make them available should the Library request copies. I am also today placing copies in the Library of summaries of the responses received to "New ambitions for our country: A New Contract for Welfare" (Cm 3805), "A new contract for welfare: Support for Disabled People" (Cm 4103) and "A new contract for welfare: Support in Bereavement" (Cm 4104).

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the policy of the Benefits Agency in respect of telephoning people outside office hours; [71126]

  (2) if it is the policy of the Benefits Agency to comply with requests from people not to be telephoned with inquiries; [71128]

  (3) if he will make a statement on (a) access which the Benefits Agency has to ex-directory telephone numbers and (b) its policy on their use; [71125]

  (4) if it is the policy of the Benefits Agency when making telephone calls to people to give a reference number and contact address if requested. [71127]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Benefits Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 22 February 1999:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking, what is the policy of Benefits Agency (BA) in respect of telephoning people outside of office hours; the policy in respect of complying with requests from people not to be telephoned with inquiries; access which the BA has to ex-directory telephone numbers and policy on use; and the policy on making telephone calls to people, to give a reference number and contact address if requested.
  Studies have identified that people prefer to use the telephone as a means of conducting day to day business. We therefore seek to use this as a means to improve upon accessibility and provision of a quality service.
  BA does not have a policy on telephoning people outside Office Hours. For operational reasons, the vast majority of calls will be made during the day, Monday to Friday. However, offices do operate flexible working hours resulting in calls potentially being made outside of 'normal' working hours. It is also the case that certain units within BA will need to telephone people in the evening or weekends, for example, where we are seeking to contact people who are no longer in receipt of benefits, or where there is a time difference, eg, people abroad who need to be contacted by our Pensions and Overseas Directorate. In providing a quality service, staff will be sensitive to keep unsociable calls to a minimum.
  BA would seek to respect the wishes of people requesting not to be contacted by telephone and would attempt to deal with the business by other means, e.g. by letter or interview. The Income Support computer system includes a notes pad where these details could be incorporated, however, this service is not replicated across our current IT systems, clerical notes to this effect would be made however.
  The BA has no direct access to ex-directory numbers. The telephone number would have to be given to the Agency. If the number has been given to us, eg, in respect of a previous benefit claim, it will be held on the Departmental Central Index computer system, which supports our mainframe benefit systems. This would result in the telephone number being available across the BA.
  It is policy for BA staff when dealing with customers over the telephone to answer identifying their unit or section. If staff are asked at any time during the telephone call to give their name, or it becomes apparent that the customer needs a contact name to help progress their claim or business, staff are required to give their name. This can be first name only, surname, or full name, and staff can use a pseudonym as long as it is a name used in all their customer contacts, so they can be identified by colleagues.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Tribunals (Medical Evidence)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to ensure that all medical 266
  evidence submitted by his Department in tribunal cases is legible; and if he will ensure that all such evidence is typewritten. [70659]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Benefits Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 22 February 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what steps are taken to ensure that all medical evidence submitted to a tribunal is legible, and whether an assurance can be given that such evidence be typewritten.
  The Benefits Agency ensures that documents containing medical information used as part of the decision making process are clear and legible. Where the information is obtained from the Agency's Medical Advisors, contact specifications dictate that the information must be legible. Staff are advised to return information for clarification that falls below this criteria, before it is used to decide entitlement.
  Information provided from an outside organisation such as a hospital or customer's General Practitioner is also scrutinised for legibility. Should such reports contain illegible information confirmation would be sought from the author.
  There are no plans to introduce a requirement that all medical evidence should be typewritten.
  I hope the information is helpful.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents in Paisley, South were on income support in the periods(a) May 1995–96, (b) May 1996–97 and (c) May 1997–98. [71432]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Douglas Alexander, dated 22 February 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the numbers of lone parents on Income Support in Paisley South in the periods (a) May 1995–96, (b) May 1996–97 and (c) May 1997–98.
  The information is not available in the format requested. The information that is available is included in the attached table.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Lone Parents in receipt of Income Support in Renfrewshire Local Authority District

  Number

  May 1995

  4,100

  May 1996

  3,900

  May 1997

  4,000

  May 1998

  3,700

  Notes:

  1. Lone Parents are defined as single people with dependants who are not in receipt of a disability or pensioner premium. Some Lone Parent customers may also be included in load counts for Pensioner premiums and Disability premium. The number of Lone Parents is therefore potentially understated.

  2. Please note that Renfrewshire Local Authority District will also include claimants from other constituencies, e.g. Renfrewshire contains claimants from both Paisley South Constituency and Paisley North Parliamentary Constituency.

  3. The information has been provided by the Analytical Services Division 1 of the DSS.

  4. Figures are based on 1 5% sample and therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  267

  5. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  6. The information has been taken from the Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry in May of each relevant year.

  SERPS
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice his Department provides upon request to individuals with SERPS pensions with regard to the change of conditions of the pension on the death of a spouse from April 2000. [72018]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on the changes to the inheritance of Additional Pension (also known as SERPS) has been included in leaflets NP 45, "A Guide to Widow's Benefit", and NP 46, "A Guide to Retirement Pensions" available from April 1996.

  An internal bulletin highlighting the changes and directed at weekly training sessions was issued in January 1999 to Benefits Agency staff.

  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of paying the full entitlement to SERPS to widows/widowers whose spouse dies on or after 6 April 2000 based on the deceased contribution record to 5 April 1996. [72552]

  Angela Eagle
  The estimated cost is £50 million in 2000–2001, increasing to £2 billion by 2020.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates, provided by the Government Actuary's Department, are in 1998–99 prices and are rounded to the nearest £50 million.

  2. Estimates are gross, i.e. means-tested benefit offsets have not been taken into account.

  3. Estimates have been made on the basis of current legislation.

  4. Long term real earnings growth of 1.5 per cent. has been assumed.

  Annuities
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the sum required to purchase an annuity of(a) £116 per week rising in line with average earnings for a couple aged 65 years with £75 rising with average earnings for a survivor and (b) £65 per week, rising in line with average prices for a female aged 50 years. [72610]

  Mr. Timms
  Annuities which increase in line with national average earning are not generally available.

  An estimate has been made on the basis of current rates for annuities which increase in line with prices, adjusted to reflect assumed earnings growth relative to prices of 1.5 per cent. a year. It is estimated that a sum of £135,000 would be required to purchase an annuity of £116 a week, increasing in line with national average earnings, payable to a man aged 65, with an annuity of £75 a week payable on his death to his wife (assumed to be aged 62), also increasing in line with national average earnings.

  On the basis of current rates for annuities which increase in line with prices, it is estimated that a sum of £85,000 would be required to purchase an annuity of £65 a week, increasing in line with prices, payable to a woman aged 50.

  Note:
  Both capital sums quoted are rounded to the nearest £5,000.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if Benefits Agency staff will review all new and repeat claims for jobseeker's allowance received since 20 June 1998, and cleared(a) on the basis of information from his Department's systems other than NIRS II and (b) on the basis of information from the claimant. [72370]

  Mr. Timms
  A special exercise will be carried out to identify all new and repeat claims (system and clerical) to Jobseeker's Allowance processed during the NIRS closure period (20 June to 8 November 1998). Each claim identified will then be reviewed to ensure correct entitlement was paid. The special exercise will ensure that those claims paid on the basis of information provided by jobseekers are identified and reviewed.

  A date has not yet been finalised when the special exercise will commence, but it is not expected to be before April 1999. The position will be kept under review but, depending on other work priorities impacting on the field, the intention is to clear the relevant cases by the end of this year.

  Claims made since 9 November (the date NIRS2 became "live" for Jobseeker's Allowance) are automatically reviewed by the Jobseeker's Allowance computer system upon confirmation of contribution information supplied by NIRS2. These cases therefore will not require a special exercise to review entitlement.

  Claims made from January which could not be assessed using information from NIRS2 have been assessed using other evidence. These cases will be reviewed on an ongoing basis, when contribution information is updated to NIRS2, as NIRS2 automatically notifies the JSA computer system of the revised details.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Legal Services
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the London barristers' chambers and (b) the London solicitors' firms that have performed services for his Department (i) since 1 May 1997 and (ii) in the equivalent period preceding that date, indicating the remuneration paid in each particular case. [70025]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General appointed Philip Sales as First Junior Treasury Counsel (Common Law) and Jonathan Crow as First Junior Counsel (Chancery) to advise and represent the Government in their important civil cases. In addition the Attorney-General maintains at present two London panels of junior counsel from whom the Ministry's Legal Department instructs counsel to assist with its civil litigation. When the Ministry wishes to instruct counsel who are not on the panel, a nomination is obtained from the Attorney-General. The Ministry also obtains such nominations from the Attorney-General in all criminal cases where representation by counsel is necessary.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what amounts in his Department's budget for 1998–99 can be attributed to spending on disabled people; and what proportion this represents of total departmental spending. [71284]

  Mr. Morley
  MAFF's Programme of Action for Equality of Opportunity includes a number of provisions for staff with disabilities.

  Managers are required to provide funding to meet reasonable adjustments for staff with disabilities from their own local budgets. This may be supplemented by funding from a central budget where there is a need for specialist equipment or additional help beyond the means of local budgets. No central record is kept of expenditure on staff with disabilities by local managers. The budgetary provision for central funding for 1998–99 is £67,500.

  In addition to the funds available to meet adjustments for individual members of staff, audits have been undertaken of the accommodation in which staff work to identify where improvements in access or the provision of facilities for people with disabilities are needed. A programme of work is underway on which £1.1 million has been spent in the last three years. The budget for this programme for 1998–99 is £450,000. This expenditure is of benefit to both staff and MAFF's customers.

  The Department also participates in the Employment Service's Supported Employment Scheme which provides work opportunities for people with severe disabilities. The 1998–99 budget is £53,000.

  As responsibilities and operations related to disability are spread throughout the Department it is not possible to give the proportion of total departmental spending.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many press releases have been issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each of the years 1990 to
  1998. [71443]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]: The number of press notices issued by MAFF, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies in each of the years since 1990 was as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1990

  408

  1991

  475

  1992

  436

  1993

  473

  1994

  493

  1995

  484

  1996

  430

  1997

  418

  1998

  499

  1999

  157

  1As at 17 February 1999

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out the conventions governing the propriety and cost of press releases issued 270
  by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies; and what is the total cost of the press releases issued since May 1997. [71458]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]: Rules governing the work of the GICS are laid down in the guidance on the work of the Government Information Service published by the Cabinet Office in July 1997. More specific guidance on the writing and issuing of press releases is given in the Working Guide for Government Information Officers. Copies of both documents are in the Libraries of the House.

  The estimated total cost of press releases since May 1997 by MAFF and the agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for whom it distributes press releases is £55,000.

  Media Allegations (Rebuttals)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) those units in his Department and (b) the number of departmental staff which are concerned with preparing rebuttals of allegations in the media; and what is (i) the total cost of their work, including salaries, and (ii) the number of rebuttals issued since May 1997. [71845]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: In common with other departments, the work of press officers in my department includes responding to any misinformed allegations concerning Government policy or activity which are published in the media. They are supported in this work by other officials as necessary.

  Because this is a routine part of a department's work and it is not separately recorded from other tasks, to provide the further information requested would involve disproportionate cost.

  Brandy and Rum Butters
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to ensure that traditional British brandy and rum butters can continue to be marketed in the European Union. [73078]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am pleased to announce that, following discussions with the industry, the European Commission and other Member States, we have managed to secure a derogation that will lower the minimum milkfat content of brandy, rum and sherry butters from 34 per cent. to 20 per cent., thereby ensuring that these traditional alcoholic butters can continue to be made using the traditional recipes enjoyed by the UK consumers for many years.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Ofsted Annual Report
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the schools identified in the Ofsted annual report for the academic year 1997–98 which, through Ofsted inspection and performance in examinations and assessments, are providing a good quality education and achieving high standards. [70931]
  271
  Ms Estelle Morris
  In his annual report for 1997–98, which was published on 9 February, HM Chief Inspector named schools in three categories: schools which were shown by inspection to be providing a good quality of education and achieving high standards; secondary schools which stand out amongst the many re-inspected during 1997–98 which had improved the quality of education and standards achieved by pupils since the previous inspection; and schools which had been removed from special measures during 1997–98 having made substantial improvements.

  I warmly congratulate and thank all those who have played a part in the successes achieved by these schools.

  The schools named by HM Chief Inspector are shown in a list, a copy of which I have placed in the Library.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking to ensure that the computer systems of(a) schools, (b) colleges and (c) higher education centres, are millennium compliant. [71680]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department for Education and Employment has urged all Local Education Authorities in England to offer help and guidance to all the schools in their area, building on Local Authorities' own Year 2000 compliance programmes. We are about to write again to spread information on good practice, including on contingency planning. The Department is working with the Further Education Funding Council and Higher Education Funding Council for England to ensure that action is being taken in colleges and higher education institutions to reduce the threat to systems posed by the date change. The funding councils have conducted surveys in their respective education sectors and have issued guidance. If necessary, they are prepared to impose conditions of grant to secure an acceptable state of readiness.

  Durham County Council (Grants)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what grants have been made by his Department to Durham County Council in addition to the revenue support grant in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [71555]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Details of the grants, in addition to revenue support grant, made available by the Department for Education and Employment to Durham County Council in 1997–98 and 1998–99 are shown in the following tables. For the Standards Fund, the figures shown include the grant made by the Department and the contribution made by the local education authority.

  Grants made available to Durham County Council in 1997–98

  £

  Standards fund

  Allocation

  School Effectiveness

  1,665,700

  National Curriculum Assessment—Verification KS1

  79,800

  National Curriculum Assessment—Supply cover KS1

  129,300

  Training for KS2 Teacher Assessment

  74,400

  KS3 Non-core Teacher Assessment

  22,800

  Primary Teachers' Subject Knowledge

  190,000

  Special Educational Needs

  185,000

  Qualifications—GNVQ Provision

  169,900

  272

  Grants made available to Durham County Council in 1997–98

  £

  Standards fund

  Allocation

  Qualifications—Part One GNVQ Pilot

  85,000

  Truancy

  77,100

  Disruptive and Disaffected Pupils

  23,100

  Pupil Behaviour and Discipline

  60,000

  Bilingual Pupils

  8,200

  Drug Prevention and Schools

  50,000

  Training for Careers Teachers

  45,800

  Literacy and Numeracy Project Centres

  209,500

  Youth Service

  16,600

  National Professional Qualification for Headship

  66,550

  School Security

  259,100

  Child Protection

  25,000

  Family Literacy

  35,000

  Specialist Schools

  156,700

  Specialist Teacher Assistants

  19,500

  Baseline Assessment

  102,400

  Primary Performance Tables

  6,700

  Books for Schools

  305,039

  New Deal for Schools

  New Deal for Schools

  755,039

  Total

  4,823,189

  Grants made available in 1998–99 to Durham County Council

  £

  Grant title

  Allocation

  Standards Fund

  School Effectiveness

  1,852,012

  School Leadership

  152,632

  Induction for Newly-Qualified Teachers

  64,530

  Early Years Training and Development

  58,800

  Reduction of Infant Class Sizes

  250,000

  Capital Work to reduce class sizes

  167,160

  Baseline Assessment

  114,957

  Assessment: Verification KS1

  38,203

  Assessment: Supply Cover

  136,734

  Training for KS2 Teacher Assessment

  72,263

  Effective use of National Curriculum Results

  77,887

  National Literacy Strategy—Primary

  743,792

  National Literacy Project—Key Stage 3

  198,220

  Summer Literacy Schools

  50,000

  Family Literacy

  35,000

  Special Educational Needs

  209,580

  Qualifications: GNVQ, AS/A Level, Key Skills etc.

  219,333

  Qualifications: Part One GNVQ Pilot

  64,000

  Work Related Learning at KS4

  49,995

  Improving Attendance and Behaviour

  272,080

  Drug Prevention

  73,912

  Youth service

  22,195

  School Security

  258,120

  Specialist Schools

  380,080

  Specialist Teacher Assistants

  3,179

  Travel to Study Support Centres

  1,692

  National Grid for Learning

  1,300,000

  Summer Numeracy Schools

  10,000

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  24,000

  Books for Schools

  313,335

  Health Education Partnerships

  75,000

  Children's Parliament

  330

  Year 6 Literacy and Numeracy Booster Classes

  172,072

  Numeracy Consultants and Leading Maths Teachers

  6,600

  Removal of Outside Toilets

  230,000

  Energy Management

  153,062

  Portable CD-ROM Systems for Special Educational Needs Coordinators

  34,000

  New Deal for Schools

  New Deal for Schools

  2,068,052

  Total

  9,952,807

  Students (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate(a) how many students resident in Newcastle are educated in local education authorities outside Newcastle, (b) how many students are educated in Newcastle local education authority schools who are resident in other local education authorities, (c) how many school students resident in Newcastle were educated in non-local education authority schools in 1996–97 and (d) how many school students resident in Newcastle who will be educated in local education authority schools in 1999–2000 in each local education authority in the City of Newcastle. [71703]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table sets out the estimated information requested for(a) and (b) for 1996–97, although the figures should be treated with caution since, following the reform of inter-authority recoupment in 1995–96, many authorities made representations that it was no longer possible for them to collect robust data on cross-border pupil movements. There are no comparable data for 1999–2000 and information on the residence of pupils attending independent schools has never been collected centrally.

  Local education authority

  Estimated exports aged 5–15

  Estimated imports aged 5–15

  Gateshead

  591

  608

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,377

  1,076

  North Tyneside

  807

  757

  South Tyneside

  185

  362

  Note:

  1. The figures are derived from the form 8A/539F returns received from local education authorities in respect of the 1996–97 financial year. Several authorities expressed reservations about the quality of the data or made incomplete returns based on estimates derived from previous years.

  "Public Relations Toolkit for Employers"
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those who attended the launch of the New Deal "Public Relations Toolkit for Employers"; and what was the cost. [71367]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The reception for small and medium-sized enterprises is estimated to have cost £1,400. It provided an opportunity to recognise and thank small and medium-sized enterprises for their involvement in New Deal. The Public Relations Toolkit was prepared to help them publicise their company through that involvement, or more widely, should they wish to do so. The following is a list of the companies and representative organisations that attended.

  AJS LoadTruck

  Artists Management

  Ashton Hart Dave Lee

  Association of British Chambers of Commerce

  Bodycare Health & Beauty Ltd.

  Burnaby Industrial Cleaning Ltd.

  Business Link Network Company

  BWIA (UK)

  Chores

  EMG

  Europa Foods

  274

  Federation of Small Businesses

  Goddard Export Services

  Griffin Fire

  Griffin Fire

  Hanlon Computer Systems

  Imago Ltd.

  J. J. Travel & Shipping

  John Parry Timber Ltd.

  Kernow Entertainment

  Mayday Group

  MB Coatings Ltd.

  Mobile Care Qualifications

  Mudu & Co. Solicitors

  Nyala Group Ltd.

  Original Eastern Foods

  Park Practice (Infinite Mind Ltd.)

  Park Practice (Infinite Mind Ltd.)

  Project Coins

  Quintdown Press

  Ramsey Finishings Systems

  Real Deal Travel Ltd.

  Red Fort

  Rion Travel

  Rob Hawkins Plumbing and Heating Engineers

  Russell Henry & Co. Solicitors

  Russell Henry & Co. Solicitors

  Soft Sheen International

  Somerset Country Furniture

  South East Lancashire Housing Association

  St. Michael's Day Nursery

  St. Kitts & Nevis Department of Tourism

  Supreme Imports Wholesales Ltd.

  Suzanne Russell

  TEC National Council

  The Institute of Directors

  The Park Inn

  The Park Inn

  Wray & Nephew.

  New Deal (Vietnamese and Chinese Nationals)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many individuals of(a) Vietnamese nationality and (b) Chinese nationality have (i) participated in the New Deal and (ii) found jobs through the New Deal. [71094]

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

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. David Maclean, dated 23 February 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about the numbers of people of Vietnamese and Chinese nationality who are participating and have found jobs through New Deal. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  While details of an individual's nationality are not held, people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance are invited to indicate their ethnic origin.

  275
  In the period to the end of November 1998, 374 clients who declared their ethnic origin as Chinese entered the New Deal for 18–24 year olds. In the same period, 59 of these clients left the Gateway for unsubsidised jobs and a further 11 for subsidised jobs. There may also be some people of Chinese origin among those who chose not to declare their ethnic origin.
  Vietnamese claimants of Jobseeker's Allowance are not identified as a separate ethnic group. It is not therefore possible to produce figures for New Deal participants and job starts for this group.

  Asylum Seekers (Children)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children of asylum seekers are currently attending school in the United Kingdom; and if he will estimate the cost of their attendance. [71092]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Local Education Authorities are funded to provide education for school-aged children of asylum seekers on the school roll, in the same way as they are for all other children on roll. We estimate that there are about 45,000 children of asylum seekers currently receiving education in the United Kingdom at a cost of around £97 million in the current financial year.

  New Deal (Gateway)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reasons individuals may stay on the Gateway to the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds for longer than four months. [71133]

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

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. David Maclean, dated 17 February 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about the reasons why the length of the Gateway period for those participating in New Deal for 18–24 year olds may be extended beyond four months. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  There are four main categories of young people whose stay on the Gateway may properly extend beyond the normal four month maximum. The first category covers young people who are not required to go on to an option at the end of four months because they are clearly intending to cease claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in the very near future. Examples, include young people who are due to start full time work; emigrate; or leave Jobseeker's Allowance to claim maternity allowance. The second category covers situations where entry to a New Deal option is, by agreement with a Personal Adviser, delayed for a short period where there is good reason. Examples include circumstances where a young person has suffered a bereavement; suffers a short-term illness; or where their planned provision is unexpectedly not available.
  The third category covers young people who refuse to enter a New Deal option. In these circumstances their case will normally be referred to an adjudication officer for a decision on the individual's benefit entitlement during which time the young person is regarded as still being on the Gateway. The fourth category covers returners to the Gateway. If a young person leaves the Gateway and subsequently returns within 13 weeks, they will re-enter the Gateway at the point which they left.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the 276
  impact on his Department's policies of the goods and services provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to be implemented in October 1999. [71277]

  Ms Hodge
  We are acting to ensure that the Department's policies meet the needs of disabled people and that we comply with our legal requirements. The Department already takes positive steps to make it easier for disabled people to make use of its services. We shall continue to do so, not only by complying fully with new duties in the Disability Discrimination Act but by aiming to exceed them where appropriate.

  The Department issued internal guidance recently on mainstreaming which ensures that all new and existing policies and programmes are assessed for any adverse impact not only on disabled people, but on any minority or disadvantaged group. That includes the need to ensure that our policies and their outcomes comply with the law. Where necessary we shall act to remove or reduce the impact on these groups. This complements the guidance "Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment" which the Cabinet Office issued to all Government Departments in November 1998, and which was signed jointly by the Minister for Women, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and the Home Secretary.

  The Departmental Board monitors the Department's performance and will publish information on the progress being made in this area, as will other Government Departments.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what amounts in his Department's budget for 1998–99 can be attributed to spending on disabled people; and what proportion this represents of total departmental spending. [71289]

  Mr. Mudie
  Approximately £290 million of this Department's budget for 1998–99 can be attributed directly to spending on disabled people. This represents 1.9 per cent. of the Department's total budget for 1998–99.

  In addition, disabled people are able to benefit from the Department's mainstream expenditure on education, employment and training, but it is not possible to identify separately the amount of this.

  Education Action Zones
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the Education Action Zones have applied to disapply(a) the national curriculum and (b) national terms and conditions for teachers. [68935]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: 11 schools in EAZs have informed QCA that they have disapplied the National Curriculum under Section 363 of the Education Act 1996 to provide wider opportunities for work-related learning at Key Stage 4 from September 1998. As regulations only came into force in September 1998, it is likely that more schools will take advantage of this provision during the remainder of this academic year and next academic year.

  A further two schools are currently considering making an application under Section 362 from September 1999 to disapply aspects of the National Curriculum for the purposes of curricular experimentation and development.
  277
  There have been no applications to disapply the national terms and conditions for teachers.

  Planning Assessments
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many staff in his Department are responsible for assessing local education authorities'(a) early years development plans, (b) asset management plans and (c) education development plans; and how much time is given on average to the assessment of each such plan. [70118]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]: We estimate that the amount of staff time expected to be spent on assessing local education authority plans (expressed as full time equivalent) is as set out in the following table.

  Type of plan

  Average staff time per plan (hours)

  Staff numbers (as FTE)

  Early years development plans

  11

  1.10

  Asset management plans

  1—

  1.10

  Education development plans

  16

  1.59

  1Detailed assessment methods for asset management plans have not yet been determined.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will describe the procedure followed by the Employment Service for tracking claimants of jobseeker's allowance who are(a) unemployed for more than two years (i) in the 18 to 24 age group and (ii) aged over 25 years and (b) lone parents. [70740]

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

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Paul Keetch, dated 17 February 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about the procedure for tracking claimants of Jobseeker's Allowance. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  Department for Education and Employment

  Type of asset sold

  Number of transactions or transaction detail

  Value realised (£)

  1997–98

  Freehold Property

  Swindon Skill Centre—land only

  1,435,850

  Fixtures and Fittings

  1

  925

  Vehicles

  63

  Cars

  62

  268,632

  Vans

  1

  2,139

  Office Machinery

  13

  49,602

  Other IT Equipment

  3,200

  152,374

  1998–99 (January 1999)

  Freehold Property

  Letchworth Skill Centre—land only

  150,070

  Office Machinery

  1

  275

  Other IT Equipment

  1,156

  15,426

  1These figures include the sale of some assets of the former Teachers' Pensions Agency which were sold to Capita Ltd. when they took over the function on a going concern basis.

  278

  The procedure for monitoring claimants of Jobseeker's Allowance starts when they make their first claim. The jobseeker is seen by an adviser for a New Jobseeker Interview and is subsequently seen fortnightly until they cease claiming Jobseeker's Allowance. The progress in finding work for jobseekers who remain unemployed is reviewed with them after 13 weeks, after six months and every six months thereafter. For those young people aged between 18 and 24 the six month review triggers their entry on to the New Deal.
  I should explain that Lone Parents do not normally claim Jobseeker's Allowance, since they are normally entitled to Income Support. New Deal for Lone Parents is a voluntary programme and participants continue to claim Income Support whilst participating on it. The only Lone Parents who claim jobseeker's Allowance are therefore those who voluntarily join the New Deal for 18–24 year olds or for those aged over 25, and those who are willing to meet the Jobseeker's Allowance benefit conditions by making themselves available for and actively seeking work.
  All claimants of Jobseeker's Allowance are recorded by the Employment Service on its Labour Market Computer System. This is used to record their progress in line with the structure of fortnightly attendance and regular reviews. In addition, jobseekers who are on New Deal are tracked by their Personal Adviser throughout their time on the programme.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Departmental Asset Sales
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the items sold by his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies from those listed in the National Assets Register of November 1997; if he will give in each case the amount of money realised; if he will estimate the total cash raised from such sales to date; and if he will make a statement. [70412]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]: The total value of money realised from the sale of assets by the Department, its agencies, and associated public bodies since the publication of the information in the National Assets Register is £13,391,196.

  Asset management is kept under close review, and those which are surplus to requirements are disposed of as quickly as possible, subject to value-for-money considerations. They are normally disposed of on the open market by public auction or tender. The exception to this rule is that in DfEE, good working IT equipment is gifted to education and employment bodies and projects via third-party organisations. The following table lists items reported as sold by the Department, its agencies and associated public bodies since the information on assets was published in the National Assets Register of November 1997.
  279

  Employment Service

  Type of asset sold

  Value realised (£)

  1997–98

  Land and Buildings1

  3,244,480

  Fixtures and Fittings

  9,000

  Vehicles

  1,117,586

  Office Machinery

  2,779

  Other IT Equipment

  83,734

  1998–99

  Land and Buildings2

  1,575,000

  (December 1998)

  Fixtures and Fittings

  5,128

  Vehicles

  914,778

  Other IT Equipment3

  1,922

  1Employment Service Property Assets listed in National Assets Register disposed of in 1997–98: Airdrie UBO, Barking JC, Biggleswade ESJ, Blaenavon ESJ, Bradford Clifford St. ESJ, Cardiff JC, Cowdenbeath ESJ, Doncaster Trafford Way ESJ, Dumfries JC, Dunoon JC, Eastleigh JC, Ellesmere Port UBO, Epping JC, Gorleston ESJ, Kelso ESJ, Llandrindod Wells ESJ, Loughborough PACT, Milford Haven ESJ, Nelson ESJ, Newton Le Willows ESJ, (Historic Lease) Northallerton ESJ, Orpington (the Walnuts), Parkhead UBO, Peterhead UBO, Preston JC, Rushden UBO, South Kirby ESJ, Stanford Le-Hope, Walton ESJ, Wishaw ESJ, Witney ESJ and Worcester ESJ.

  2Employment Service Property Assets listed in National Assets Register disposed of in 1998–99 (up to December 1998): Camden Town ESJ, Malvern ESJ, and March ESJ.

  3From 1 August 1998 the Employment Service entered into a partnership agreement with EDS for a period of 10 years. Under the partnership agreement, ES computer equipment (with the exception of telecommunication equipment) transferred to EDS for a nominal charge. The assets had a net book value of approximately £20 million at the date of transfer. They were exchanged for equivalent savings in the net present value of service charges over the term of the agreement.

  Ofsted

  Type of assets sold

  Number of transactions

  Value realised £

  1997–98

  Vehicles—Cars

  7

  28,329

  1998–99

  Vehicles—Cars

  4

  20,318

  Organisation

  Type of asset sold

  Value realised (£)

  NCVQ/SCAR now

  QCA

  1997–98

  Office Machinery

  450

  Vehicles

  2,432

  1998–99

  Other IT Equipment

  3,500

  Vehicles

  19,297

  Teachers Training Agency

  1997–98

  IT equipment

  3,900

  Construction Industry Training Board

  1997–98

  Building

  140,000

  Plant and Machinery

  20,500

  Office furniture and equipment

  10,700

  Vehicles

  263,933

  1998–99

  Plant and Machinery

  8,200

  Office furniture and equipment

  750

  Vehicles

  108,300

  Funding Agency for Schools

  1997–98

  IT equipment

  9,000

  1998–99

  IT equipment

  3,400

  Higher Education Funding Council for England

  1997–98

  Vehicles

  4,200

  IT equipment

  25,500

  280

  Organisation

  Type of asset sold

  Value realised (£)

  Remploy Ltd.

  1997–98

  Buildings

  164,000

  Plant machinery and other equipment

  955,000

  Vehicles

  400,000

  1998–99

  Buildings

  538,000

  Plant machinery and other equipment

  886,000

  Vehicles

  119,000

  Student Loan Company

  1997–98

  Computer and other electronic equipment

  463,000

  Vehicles

  43,000

  Further Education Funding Council

  1997–98

  Equipment

  2,285

  1998–99

  Equipment

  502

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board

  1997–98

  Plant and machinery

  118,000

  Gateway Interviews (Training)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what specific training will be given to personal advisers conducting interviews for the Single Work-Focused Gateway on advising people with learning disabilities. [71584]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]: Single Work-Focused Gateway Personal Advisers will have access to training materials to equip them with the skills and knowledge to help them identify people with learning disabilities.

  This training material will also equip Personal Advisers to refer people with learning disabilities to the most appropriate specialist support.

  The content of the training material includes the following:

  how to identify people with disabilities, including learning disabilities;

  the sensitivities around dealing with people with disabilities;

  specialist programmes available for people with disabilities; and

  the specific help specialist support can offer, e.g. through the Disability Employment Adviser.

  Education SSAs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what representations he has received on the SSA level for the education provision in North Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement; [72165]

  (2) what plans he has to visit North Yorkshire to discuss the SSA settlement for North Yorkshire County Council. [72160]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received representations from concerned schools and parents complaining about the possibility that North Yorkshire County Council may not use all of the £13 million increase in the education SSA to support education. He has no plans to visit North Yorkshire, buthas written to the Leader of the County Council to make it clear that we expect the County Council to set a budget
  281
  which uses all of the education SSA increase to support education services, especially schools. I understand that the County Council will now do this.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what changes he plans to make to cash limits and running costs limits within his responsibility for 1998–99. [72993]

  Mr. Mudie
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for Class IX, Vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services), Vote 3 (Employment Service), and Vote 4 (Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England), will be amended as follows:

  Class

  Vote

  Existing cash limit (£)

  Change (£)

  New cash limit (£)

  IX

  1

  10,381,602,000

  94,807,000

  10,476,409,000

  IX

  3

  1,749,858,000

  25,811,000

  1,775,669,000

  IX

  4

  118,641,000

  -8,300,00

  110,342,000

  The cash limit for Class IX, Vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services) will be increased by £94,807,000 from £10,381,602,000 to £10,476,409,000. This is the net effect of the take up of £17,356,000 of the end-year flexibility eligibility on running costs and £5,265,000 of that on the New Deal for Schools announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 131–36; a claim on reserve of £38,000,000 to cover European Social Fund payments in the current financial year for which the receipts from the EC will not arrive until next year; transfers of £8,300,000 from Class IX, Vote 4 (Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools) and £19,200,000 from Class IX, Vote 3 (Employment service) in connection with Books for Schools and Key stage 2 revision classes, of £20,000 from Class XIII, Vote 3 (the Scottish Office) for compensation due to a change in the student support funding regime and cross border flows of students, and of £102,000 to Class XII, Vote 3 (the Department of Social Security) for publicity of the National Childcare strategy; a switch of £4,224,000 from Supplementary Credit approvals in connection with the provision of schools capital; and an increase of £6,348,000 for Welfare to Work publicity and running costs of which £1,718,000 is transferred from Class IX, Vote 3 (Employment Service) and £70,000 from Class XII, Vote 3 (Department of Social Security), and £4,560,000 is extra provision financed from the windfall tax; offset by transfers of £250,000 to Class XIV, Vote 2 (the Welsh office) and £230,000 to Class XV, Vote 1 (the Northern Ireland Departments) for the University for Industry, of £470,000 to Class XII, Vote 1 (the Department of Social Security) for Bridging Allowances, of £4,260,000 of gross provision and £1,702,000 of receipts to Class IX, Vote 3 (the Employment Service) for restructuring and Grays Inn Road property, and of £500,000 to Class XI, Vote 1 (the Department of Health) for professions allied to medicine.

  The running cost provision within the control total has been increased by £25,791,000 from £250,548,000 to £276,330,000. This is as a result of the £17,356,000 take up of end-year flexibility and the transfers of £20,000 from the
  282
  Scottish Office and £4,260,000 to the Employment Service mentioned above, plus the reclassification of £3,000,000 from capital to running costs and an addition of £9,500,000 to take account of the change to the treatment of VAT receipts on contracted out services and of £175,000 for EC related initiatives which are offset by receipts. The Welfare-to-Work running costs provision (outside the control total) will increase by £1,479,000 form £1,283,000 to £2,762,000. This is as a result of the transfer of £219,000 from the Employment Service, the virement of £130,000 from the Millennium Volunteers programme and additions of £494,000, £70,000, £370,000 and £196,000 for the New Deals on Young People, Lone Parents, the Disabled and Partners respectively.

  The non-Voted cash limit DfEE/LACAP has also been decreased by £4,224,000 from £44,940,000 to £40,716,000 as a result of increase in provisions of schools capital.

  The cash limit for Class IX, Vote 3: Employment Service will be increased by £25,811,000 (of which £15,311,000 is in respect of the Welfare-to-Work programme and is outside the control total) from £1,749,858,000 to £1,775,669,000.

  The £15,311,000 for the Welfare-to-Work programme is the net result of the following: a transfer of £10,350,000 from Class XII, Vote 1 (Central government administered social security benefits and other payments) for the New Deal for lone parents; £4,871,000 direct from the Windfall Tax for the New Deal programmes to help people with disabilities and partners of unemployed people into work; the take up of £1,808,000 under the Welfare-to-Work end year flexibility scheme as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1998, Official Report, column 131–36; a transfer of £1,718,000 to Class IX, Vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services) to cover the cost of work on New Deal programmes undertaken by Department for Education and Employment.

  The balance of the increase to the cash limit, £10,500,000, is the net result of the following: an increase of £19,957,000 in capital provision due to the sale of Information Technology assets; the transfer of £19,200,000 to Class IX, Vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services) in respect of additional spending on books for schools and Key Stage 2; the transfer from Class XII, Vote 3 (Department of Social Security; administration) of £7,108,000 for the recalculation of JSA core funding and other work ES undertakes for the Benefits Agency; a transfer of £4,260,000 in running costs and £1,702,000 in appropriations in aid from Class IX, Vote 1, to cover the transfer of the lease for 236 Grays Inn Road, London and the restructuring costs of surplus staff; and from Class XVIII, Vote 1 (Cabinet Office: other services), £77,000 in respect of accommodation costs of The Pithay, Bristol.

  The running cost provision within the control total for Class IX, Vote 3 will be increased by £24,873,000 from £777,673,000 to £802,546,000. This increase results from the transfers of £7,108,000 from the Department of Social Security, £4,500,000 from capital provision to fund additional expenditure on Information technology services now undertaken by an external provider; £4,260,000 from the Department for Education and Employment and

  283
  £77,000 from the Cabinet Office and an addition of £8,928,000 to take account of the change to the treatment of VAT receipts on contracted out services which are offset by receipts.

  The Welfare-to-Work running costs provision, outside the control total for Class IX, Vote 3 will be increased by £14,291,000 from £122,500,000 to £136,791,000. This is the result of the transfer of £9,725,000 from the Department of Social Security, the additional £4,476,000 from the Windfall Tax, the take up of £1,808,000 of end-year flexibility and the transfer to the Department for Education and Employment of £1,718,000.

  The gross running costs limit for the DfEE (comprising Class IX, Vote 1 and Vote 3) inside the control total has increased by £32,236,000 from £1,028,221,000 to £1,060,457,000 and outside the control total by £15,770,000 from £123,783,000 to £139,553,000. The gross running costs limit is net of the VAT changes of £9,500,000 on Vote 1 and £8,928,000 on Vote 3.

  The cash limit for Class IX, Vote 4 (Ofsted) will be reduced by £8,300,000 from £118,641,000 to £110,342,000 as a result of the transfer to Class IX, Vote 1 in connection with Key Stage 2 revision classes.
  284
  Increases to all Votes mentioned above will be offset by transfers and charges to the reserves and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Age Diversity
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the consultation on the draft Code of Practice on Age Diversity. [72994]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We received a range of responses from individuals, employers, employers' organisations and campaigning organisations. For the most part, respondents felt the Code was clear, useful and covered the right areas, though a number of suggestions were made about how the Code could be further improved. With these comments in mind, we will be developing more detailed guidance on implementing the standards recommended in the Code, together with providing illustrative case studies.

  I have placed copies of the report on the consultation and a summary of its main outcomes in the Library.

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

Lord Imbert
Sir Peter Michael Imbert, Knight, having been created Baron Imbert, of New Romney in the County of Kent, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Harris of Greenwich and the Lord Bramall.
Lord Rayleigh—Took the Oath.

ACP/EU Banana Production Agreement: Sanction Threat
2.43 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as a residual beneficiary of a banana-producing plantation in the West Indies.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made with the United States Government regarding the threat of a trade dispute arising from the European Union agreement with ACP countries on banana production.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, the Government have made their views known to the United States Government on a number of occasions. We shall continue to work with the European Commission in pursuit of a solution within the World Trade Organisation, so avoiding the imposition of trade sanctions by the United States.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that one of the most serious problems is the continued uncertainty facing ACP producers and, indeed, the likes of the textile producers in the Scottish Borders who obviously rely heavily on exports to the United States of America?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I wholly agree with what the noble Lord has said and with the sentiments behind it. We are very concerned with the threats to the ACP banana producers and with the, in our view, quite unwarranted threat of United States sanctions against British producers.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, although I welcome the answer that has just been given by my noble friend the Minister, does he agree that it is only because we are able to speak with a single voice in the European Union on this and, indeed, on other issues that we have
946
any chance of resisting these outrageous threats being made by the US Government and insisting on the application of the rule of law through the WTO?
Lord Donoughue: Absolutely, my Lords. We are working, and have always worked, with the EU to present a united position. We have resisted the attempts of the US to deal with this in a unilateral way. We believe that the WTO is there to settle matters in a multilateral way.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, while that statement is no doubt absolutely correct, does the Minister recognise that the position in the cashmere industry in the Scottish borders is so serious, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that Members of Parliament in the other place are raising the matter this afternoon during Scottish Questions? They will be asking the Secretary of State for Scotland to raise the matter at Cabinet level. They believe that the Prime Minister should speak directly to President Clinton because of what we believe to be improper financial pressure being brought to bear on the Democratic Party in the United States as regards this matter.
Lord Donoughue: Yes, my Lords. The Scottish cashmere industry is one of the main producers which have been singled out. It has absolutely nothing to do with the banana issue. I believe that there are over 2,000 jobs in the Scottish Lowlands, about 800 of which are very dependent on exports to the United States. We shall do all we can in defence of those workers and that industry.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has said on this serious matter. I hope that the negotiations with the United States on the matter are being taken up at all levels; and I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Steel, has just said. However, will the Minister draw to the attention of those concerned the very real danger in the Caribbean, should the banana industry collapse, of those economies turning to something much more unpleasant and much more dangerous for all of us?
Lord Donoughue: Yes, my Lords, certain Caribbean countries are enormously dependent on the banana trade. The alternatives are clearly much less desirable. It is for that reason that we have been dealing with the United States Government at all levels; indeed, the Prime Minister has dealt with the President. The matter has also been taken up by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister of Agriculture. They have all made representations to their opposite numbers in the US.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that I have an American wife and that I spend part of each year in America? I am deeply concerned about this matter of bananas. Could not a high level delegation of Ministers fly to Washington DC

947
to make representations directly to the United States Government and stay there until they get a sensible answer?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I can see the attractions of removing much of the Government, especially for an unspecified time period. I would quite enjoy being on that delegation, but we would all have to get permission from the Chief Whip. I can assure my noble friend that everything that is possible is being done. However, as has been said, the best way to make such representations is with a united European voice and through the WTO. For the information of the House, I can tell noble Lords that there are two key dates in that respect. On 2nd March, the WTO arbitrator is due to report on our complaint about the threat of sanctions. Moreover, on 12th April, a report is to be produced on whether our amendments to the banana regime do in fact bring it in line with WTO requirements.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, if sanctions were to be introduced, will the Minister say whether the Government will consider direct sanctions against the Chiquita company because of the financial lobbying that company has undertaken in Washington?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is reported that that company contributed about three-quarters of a billion dollars in the previous election campaign, although I do not know whether that is true. We cannot jump the sanctions hurdle until we get to it.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in what he has said to the Minister relative to unemployment in the south of Scotland. That unemployment is serious under the present Government, particularly in towns such as Hawick, Selkirk, Galashiels and in Dumfries. It has been rising under the present Government. Will the Minister do all he can within a matter of weeks to try to get this matter resolved before the situation deteriorates still further?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we are certainly doing all we can. We are concerned about unemployment. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, in the Lowlands in general the unemployment level is, I believe, 4.2 per cent. That is a little lower than the average. However, in towns such as Hawick about 90 per cent. of manufacturing jobs are in the textile industry. We are anxious to obtain a satisfactory conclusion on this matter.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, who will pay for essential diversification projects, or are recipient nations once again to burden themselves with an excessive debt burden?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we shall have to see what the situation is after the WTO decisions are taken.
948
However, the noble Viscount should be aware that in Brussels consideration is already being given to an aid plan of a quarter of a billion pounds over the next 10 years.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the fact that in this House we are able to buy only Colombian bananas as opposed to those from ACP countries?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not think that comes within my responsibilities. However, I am sure that the relevant authorities will bear in mind both the need to provide Members of the House with the greatest choice and the need to provide Members of the House with a better taste, and will also remember our traditional obligations to the ACP countries.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as this is a matter of trade and trade disputes, why is this Question not being answered by the Department of Trade and Industry?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is the Government who answer and today I speak for the Government.

Drigg: Processing of Nuclear Waste
2.52 p.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the effect of the decision that the nuclear processing plant at Drigg cannot accept waste from nuclear power plants because it has exceeded the level of carbon 14 allowed for the next 25 years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, tests have revealed that waste resins sent to Drigg from Devonport Royal Dockyard Limited may have contained carbon 14. If confirmed, Drigg may have received more carbon 14 than is permitted in its disposal authorisations. More definite information is not expected to be available before mid-March. In the meantime Drigg has ceased to accept the wastes in question but will otherwise operate normally. No site worker or member of the public has received any additional radiation dose.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but what is happening to the nuclear waste which is not being accepted at Drigg? If it proves, as is my information, that the amount of carbon 14 is grossly excessive, what will happen from the middle of March when the report is received?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we do not at this moment know what the situation is at Drigg. However, it is believed that this matter will not have a significant effect on operations. In the meantime the resins are not being sent to Drigg. I have no reason to believe that the consignor will be prevented from sending wastes to Drigg in the future. However, I understand that

949
should the consignor be prevented from sending wastes to Drigg in the longer term, he will be able to make arrangements to store them on site until a suitable disposal facility becomes available.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, am I correct in thinking that a Bill to bring nuclear energy plants under a greater degree of control is on its way? If that is the case, will that Bill, when it becomes an Act, be a means of dealing with this kind of problem?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not aware of any such Bill. I do not think there is a necessity to take any action of that nature on this issue. Obviously action is being taken to examine how this situation occurred and the fact that it was not spotted as early as it should have been. However, I do not think that that requires legislation.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that apart from this carbon 14 issue, the capacity of Drigg, radiologically speaking, will be full, even if the volume is not full, within the next 50 years? Will that require a further disposal facility to be started for low level waste?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not believe that there is a time horizon constraint of that kind with regard to the operations at Drigg taking this kind of fuel.

Children's Rights
2.55 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to appoint a children's rights commissioner.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government have made a number of commitments which will enable children's rights and safeguards to be kept under careful scrutiny. These include establishing children's rights officers in each of the eight commissions for care standards in England; joint reporting from all the inspectorates dedicated to children; and continuing the work of the ministerial task force on children's safeguards. The Government are not persuaded that it is desirable to create a national mechanism additional to the existing agencies and arrangements for ensuring that safeguards for children are implemented, and their voices heard.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that women, who represent 50 per cent. of the vote in this country, have a Minister to look after their interests and that the working age disabled, who represent about 13 per cent. of the population, are about to have a disability rights commission to look after their interests? Is it not reasonable that children, who represent 23 per cent. of the population and do not have a vote, should have an
950
ombudsman dedicated to their interests to whom they or their parents can apply for redress when they are let down by officialdom?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Minister for Women has an important role in developing and promoting a whole range of women's issues in government. Dare I say that I think she does that job well? Of course, I very much share the concern of the noble Lord to ensure that children's rights come to the fore. However, one has to consider that as regards the services provided to children, statutory responsibilities go across a whole range of agencies both at national and local level. It is the Government's belief that we need a step by step approach to improving the delivery of children's services within the existing institutions and also in relation to the proposals that were enunciated in the social services White Paper published towards the end of the year. In that way we can give the right focus to protecting the interests of children.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, over the past two decades Members of both sides of this House and another place have played a significant part in securing arrangements which seek to protect children, including the establishment of commissioners, in several European countries. While one recognises that the Government's commitment to child welfare is undoubted, will my noble friend ensure that the experience in other similar European countries where commissioners have been appointed is monitored to ensure that we at least match the high standards which obtain there?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am happy to accept that we should continue to monitor the performance of children's commissioners in other countries. However, children's commissioners are not the only means to safeguard the rights of children. I believe that the Government's approach in taking decisive steps to improve the quality of services delivered to children, particularly within the remit of social services, is the right one. I draw my noble friend's attention to the proposed children's rights officers who, following legislation, will be established in each of the eight commissions for care standards. They will play a very important role in ensuring that the rights of children are fully taken into account.
Baroness Young: My Lords, will the Minister also consider the rights of parents, particularly the rights of responsible parents? Does he agree that if they were given more support, perhaps there would be less need for a commissioner for children?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows that the Government and I are very keen to support the role of parents. I do not believe that the concept of ensuring children's rights is in contradiction to family life, as I think the noble Baroness implies. Providing rights for children goes alongside responsibility. The more responsible children are. the more they contribute to family life.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, as a former chairman of the United Nations Children's Fund in this country, may

951
I invite the Government to review their attitude towards this matter? We have, after all, signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child and appointing a commissioner would confirm our commitment to the cause. It would be widely welcomed in the United Nations. I hope it will be done.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord raises the very important issue of the UN convention in relation to the rights of children. The Government are to provide a report to the UN about this country's progress on those matters. In formulating our evidence we are gathering together the views of at least 10 government departments in Whitehall and also those of voluntary organisations with a particular concern in this area. The Government's contention is that we would not necessarily achieve the objectives of the UN convention by appointing a children's commissioner. It is important that we show we are safeguarding the rights of children; I believe that we are.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware of some of the horrific modern problems, such as child pornography on the Internet? Would not a commissioner help to highlight some of these problems? Would not fast-track European legislation help in this regard?
Lord Hunt of Kings Health: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords recognise this particularly difficult issue. It is a problem well recognised by parents and the Government. But appointing a commissioner is not in itself the solution. These issues need to be dealt with by the current government departments and agencies. We should put the emphasis on making those departments and agencies work effectively rather than create another post which, in itself, could create boundary problems and duplication of effort.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are cases which show that existing measures have not proved satisfactory? For example, there has been exploitation of children by parents, notably in entertainment and particularly in television advertising. It is precisely in that kind of area where the appointment of a commissioner would be particularly worth while. On reflection, does not my noble friend agree that that might be so?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out a particularly difficult issue. The point I make, as I have done previously, is to say that merely appointing a children's commissioner does not necessarily solve the problems that have been raised. The Government's view is that we have to use our existing mechanisms more effectively. We need to develop the kind of initiatives that the Government are taking—particularly in the area of vulnerable children and children living away from home—to improve the quality and outcome of services and to ensure that the child's voice is heard.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, my noble friend having pointed out that responsibility for this topic is
952
divided among 10 government departments, does he agree that the primary purpose of the United Nations convention is to address the whole field of children's rights as a unified whole? If so, is not dividing it up into separate topics, each with separate enforcement and monitoring machinery, akin to attempting to read a book one letter at a time?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is certainly very important for government to be aware of the, dare I say it, joined-up nature of the mechanisms required to deal with some of these issues. That is why we established a ministerial task force to look at safeguards for children living away from home. That has produced a number of very important measures which are being implemented, and shows what can be done when Whitehall departments work together. The task force involved 10 government departments. Inevitably, dealing with children is bound to involve many agencies—within government, local and national—and whether you create one child commissioner or continue to develop the services through individual departments, you will always have issues at the boundary, grey areas, which have to be negotiated. I am not convinced at this stage that simply appointing a children's commissioner will abolish at one stroke some of the impediments to a cohesive policy. In relation to the proposals for children's rights officers, we should hope to see legislation enacted as soon as the legislative timetable allows. We should see how that develops and then perhaps come back to the Question.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, since good parenting is the key to so much of what we want to deliver for children, does my noble friend agree that the establishment of the Institute of Parenting, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Warner, will have a very important contribution to make in this regard?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, yes. I think all of us who are parents know the challenges that confront us in trying to be good parents. Any help that we can be given will be much appreciated.
Lord McNair: My Lords, with reference to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, does the Minister agree that rights and responsibilities are inseparable whether one is talking about adults parents or children?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, yes. I very much agree.

Eritrea and Ethiopia
3.7 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to help secure a peaceful settlement of the territorial dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we have taken every opportunity, bilaterally and with the European Union and United Nations, to persuade the Governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea to accept and implement the Organisation of African Unity peace proposals presented on 7th November.
We are deeply saddened that fighting has resumed. We fully supported United Nations Security Council Resolution 1277 and the European Union Presidency statement of 12th February which called on both sides to stop fighting and resume the search for a peaceful settlement. We continue to urge both sides to stop fighting and to resume their search for a peaceful, negotiated settlement.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does not the Minister consider that the Security Council could take further measures to enforce Security Council Resolution 1277? In particular, could it not implement the demand which was made then for an immediate halt to hostilities and the use of air strikes? Could not the voluntary arms embargo be replaced with a mandatory one? As Ethiopia has said that it will not negotiate until the Eritreans have withdrawn from the pocket of occupied territory, and as the Eritreans refuse to move their troops from this area, would not a possible solution be to install a neutral force, perhaps under OAU auspices, to administer the territory pending a solution?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, UNSCR 1277 condemns the use of force on both sides and demands an immediate ceasefire. It urges the member states to end the sale of arms to both countries. Her Majesty's Government argued in the Security Council for a binding embargo but, alas, there was no consensus and so a voluntary basis was agreed. In answer to a Parliamentary Question on 15th February my honourable friend Mr. Lloyd announced a UK arms embargo to Parliament. Her Majesty's Government have tried to do what they can on that front.
The noble Lord raised the possibility of a peacekeeping force from the OAU. It is important to remember that Ethiopia has accepted the OAU framework proposals. The Eritreans have not rejected them. They have not yet accepted them. We hope that they will. The problem is that the OAU does not yet have ready the mechanisms to become a peacekeeping force. It is developing a centre for conflict prevention and Her Majesty's Government are trying to help with that, both with expertise and with financing.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister mentioned the OAU draft agreement. Can she confirm that this would provide for arbitration and demarcation of the frontier by United Nations personnel?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in fact 11 points were put forward in the framework agreement to both sides on 7th November last year. It is worth noting that it built on the US Rwandan proposals which were put forward in June last year. The key
954
requirement is that the Eritreans withdraw from the disputed area around Badume as a first step and allow the restoration of the Ethiopian civil administration in the area. The OAU central organ summit at Ouagadougou on 17th December endorsed the proposals of the high level delegation and so far, as I said, the Ethiopians have accepted them. The Eritreans, while they have not rejected them, have still to accept them. They raised some questions on them. Those questions were answered on 25th January. We very much hope that in due course the Eritreans, too, will accept this framework agreement.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether our missions in these two territories and possibly other EU missions could gather more information on who is supplying arms in the two territories? In that way we could build up a picture so that not only can we press for mandatory arms sanctions in this case but get a better picture of who is responsible for the arms trade in general in so many parts of Africa.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I wish we could build up a rather better picture on that front. We are to some extent inhibited by the fact that our ambassador in Ethiopia also covers Eritrea. This means that there are some problems at the moment in getting information out of Eritrea. The Belgian Embassy in London informed us on both November that in August Belgium's Customs stopped a shipment of goods originating in Germany and destined for Eritrea. I am sorry to say that a British company was involved in organising that shipment. The matter is now before the Belgian courts. So we are trying to be as vigilant as we can. I hope that that example illustrates that there is European co-operation; and, where we can, we do swap the information that is relevant.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, pursuant to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, what reports, if any, has the Minister received to corroborate Eritrean claims that Ethiopia is using mercenaries? In addition to the one company which he mentioned, to the Government's knowledge are any British private military companies involved?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not have any specific information on the possibility of British private companies being involved. I am sure that it would have been drawn to my attention if that were the case. However, I will write to the noble Lord if in any way my briefing was not entirely complete on that point. I will place a copy of the letter in the Library, knowing as I do the importance that all your Lordships attach to such an answer.
There are a number of different Eritrean worries about this conflict. There are worries about the role of Djibouti. There are worries, too, in Eritrea about the actions of the Sudanese Government in relation to the support they have given for an Eritrean Islamic Jihad. A number of different forces are at play in the area which make up a very complex picture.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a wonderful map archive section in the Foreign

955
and Commonwealth Office? Will she take copies of any maps that were compiled by the British authorities during the period of our administration in Eritrea and place them in the Libraries of both Houses so that at least Members can see what we considered to be the boundary at that time? Will she also consider suggesting to the Security Council that reference be made to the International Court for an advisory opinion so that at least the parties would know, if they were prepared to submit to its judgment, what its likely decision would be?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am well aware of the FCO map room; and a splendid room it is. I often have recourse to it for maps in order to see present dispositions as well as the dispositions of the past. I shall certainly see what I can do to meet the noble Lord's request for any relevant maps from the past.
On the question of the territory that is disputed at the moment, I stress to the noble Lord that for the time being it is important that we go ahead on the basis of the framework agreement put forward by the Organisation of African Unity. Not only is that important body fully behind the proposals that were put forward in November last year, but they have been backed on three occasions by United Nations Security Council resolutions and on three occasions by declarations from the European Union. So I think the way forward on this is very clear, but I shall do what I can to help with the maps.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place entitled EMU Outline National Changeover Plan. It is not likely that this Statement will be taken before 4.30 p.m.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I repeat the suggestion, agreed through the usual channels, that I made yesterday. If the Back-Bench speakers in the resumed debate on the House of Lords reform White Paper take no more than eight minutes, the House will be able to rise at a reasonable hour this evening.

House of Lords Reform
3.16 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Monday by Baroness Jay of Paddington, That this House take note of Her Majesty's Government's White Paper Modernising Parliament: Reforming the House of Lords (Cm 4183), to which an amendment had been moved at end to insert "; urges Her Majesty's Government in carrying forward the proposals in the White Paper to set as its objectives an increase in the independence of Parliament and an enhancement of its ability to
956
scrutinise legislation and hold the executive to account; and therefore specifically calls on the Royal Commission to reject the proposition in paragraph 7.26 of the White Paper that the available powers of this House might be significantly reduced.".
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I suspect it is almost inevitable that the proceedings of your Lordships' House from now on are bound to convey very much an atmosphere of an era coming to an end. I think it is always a dangerous moment because there is a temptation that we should descend into mawkishness. I am sure your Lordships are far too sensible to succumb to that temptation. However, I would venture to suggest that just a touch of nostalgia would not come amiss.
In my case, that sense of nostalgia is perhaps heightened by the fact that I am to be followed this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. For us perhaps this shadow boxing is a little bit of a trip down memory lane. Indeed, the pleasure with which I look forward to his speech is, as always, and has always been in the past, tinged with a sense perhaps of trepidation. After all, the noble Lord's tongue has clearly not lost any of its skill. But I must say to your Lordships that the emotion that I feel when contemplating this prospect is above all one of pleasure because it seems to me that the noble Lord and I agree at least on one point; that is, that a reformed House of Lords should have enough authority to perform its central task properly. As to what that central task should be, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to return to that in a moment.
I should like to emphasise one point at the outset of my remarks. I am conscious of the danger of being too didactic as five years as either Leader of your Lordships' House or indeed Leader of the Opposition is in any other assembly a great source of authoritative experience. But surrounded by the faces by which I am surrounded today, I am all too conscious that that is merely a beginner's record. Nevertheless, one must speak to one's experience. That is what I will do, and if I appear to be didactic, I hope your Lordships will forgive me.
The past five years have convinced me at least of one thing when contemplating the future of your Lordships' House. It is that this House does indeed need reform. There has been a curiously cost habit in this House of saying that our Chamber works well. In many senses that is self-evidently true. In many ways it does work well. We have an enormous repository of experience which is displayed with great elegance. Our Select Committee reports are read far more widely than are the Select Committee reports of another place, and deservedly so. We are very good at raising issues of the day, but, more importantly, issues of tomorrow, which the restriction of another place confines to an horizon no further away than the forthcoming election. We are, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has frequently reminded us, an effective legislative housemaid.
In spite of all that, it seems to me that your Lordships' House nevertheless fails in its central purpose. I venture to suggest that the definition of its central purpose above all today could best be expressed as to improve the

957
performance of the House of Commons. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to explain what may seem rather an impertinent remark.
It has been my observation during a short period in government, particularly as a business manager, that great Secretaries of State are, by definition, no matter what party they come from, great men and women. But they suffer from one collective failing. I hope that those of my former colleagues who are present will forgive me for this observation. They seem to think that the best Way in which they can imprint their names on the pages of history is to pass as many pieces of legislation per Session as they conveniently can convince their colleagues they should. That is a serious mistake. It leads to poorly thought-out policy and late instructions to parliamentary counsel—who, I suspect, are among the real unsung heroes of Whitehall. It inevitably, therefore, leads to poorly drafted legislation.
That would not matter so much if it were not for the extraordinary power and efficiency of the Government Whips' Office in another place. That power and efficiency mean that the Government manage to pass their entire legislative programme in another place pretty well unscathed year after year, even in the dying days of an exhausted government, such as we were, who had lost their majority.
It is true that this House does much to improve that legislation when it reaches us. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, has done us a great favour in drawing our attention to the number of amendments that were accepted during the course of the previous Session, which I believe I am right in saying was nearly 4,000. But that is no more than extensive spring-cleaning of the kind that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, so much approved of us for undertaking.
However important the amendments may have been, they were in the great scheme of things no more than peripheral. I could instance a number of cases where your Lordships perhaps did not address central issues during the term of office of a Conservative government. However, I cannot resist being party-political even in this House, and perhaps I may concentrate by way of example on two glaring instances, particularly as they are in the constitutional field, which is after all where your Lordships pride yourselves on having a particular residual responsibility.
The two glaring cases that I have in mind are these. First, the Welsh Bill—which as your Lordships are all too painfully aware was an important piece of legislation, of some interest to the people of Wales above all others—arrived in this House with a large number of clauses that had not been discussed for one split second in Committee or on Report in another place. Another, even more serious instance was that of the referendum Bill, which allowed a rigged referendum to take place that was designed to produce the answer that the Government wanted. It was an answer that they would certainly have got in Scotland, but which I doubt they would have got in Wales had the referendum not been rigged in the Government's favour. The other instance was that the referendum Bill provided for pre-legislative referendums, which from the Dispatch
958
Box opposite I have endeavoured in the past to condemn. That seems to me to be a totalitarian device, above all designed to unman Parliament for its consideration of the legislation that is to follow the referendum. So why did we not send both Bills back with a label marked "unconstitutional" on them?
The answer is simple. We do not believe that we have the authority or the standing to do so by reason of our composition. Were the hereditary peerage to have the same standing as once it had, there would be no case for reform of this House. Unfortunately, not even we believe that any more. That is why we need reform, and why we particularly need it now.
Parliament, its standing and its central place as the representative of the electorate, with a duty to hold the Government to account, are under attack as never before. We are now governed by a number of bodies whose authority is higher than that of Parliament de jure or de facto, or, if we are not, we are about to be—I refer to Brussels and the ECHR from above and the Scottish Parliament, above all of all the devolved assemblies, from below. No matter whether the Prime Minister decrees that sovereignty remains at Westminster, we have only to ask the question, "Whom will the Scottish parliament support in any Westminster/Edinburgh dispute?", to realise where de facto sovereignty will lie; or indeed, the question, "Whom will the Scottish people support in any Westminster/Brussels dispute?". If we add to this sad state of affairs a Government who find Parliament a contemptible inconvenience, Parliament looks increasingly like a horse in a sentimental Victorian children's book—ill-treated and over-burdened to such a degree that the soft-hearted onlooker feels that the only thing to do is to rescue it and put it out to grass. Of course, your Lordships and I know that it is better by far to feed it up and put it to work in humane conditions rather than succumb to that mawkish solution.
Paradoxically, a more authoritative House of Lords would help the House of Commons to perform better by forcing it to legislate better and to hold the Government to account more rigorously. That point was implicit in everything that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said in his admirable address yesterday. If this House in its reformed state is to perform that essential and urgent service for another place, its composition must above all command universal authority and respect and be independent. It must not have so much authority that it ultimately challenges another place; nor should it have so little that it risks going the way of the New Zealand Senate—a warning so eloquently set before us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, in a debate in this House on 15th October.
It also means that my noble friend Lord Wakeham would be most unwise to accept the hint set out in the by now notorious paragraph 7.26 of the White Paper that the Royal Commission should accept a reduction in the powers of this House, however alluring such a prospect might be, as perhaps put forward by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House yesterday. I submit that we shall need to use our existing powers to the full

959
from time to time in a reformed House, if we are to have any chance of frightening the other place into holding the Government to account effectively.
So I must conclude by saying that, in the light of this analysis, I was immensely heartened by the speech of my noble friend Lord Wakeham in your Lordships' House yesterday. I confess that I am not altogether surprised by its content, although I suspect that the Government were. He will, he told us, be holding hearings in public. He said that he would be sure to make it clear that he and his commission would cover every aspect of a highly complex and important question.
I am glad that he finds the question to be important. I was sorry that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House did not seem to understand in her remarks yesterday that the causes close to our hearts, some of which she so eloquently enumerated, would be far better tackled in a properly reformed House and that on those grounds alone, therefore, it is worth our while spending what I am sure she finds a disproportionate part of our time in trying to persuade the Government to get it right in this once-in-a-century opportunity.
I have no doubt that until recently the Government wanted to stick to a stage one House for the foreseeable future. I suspect that, if your Lordships needed any more evidence of that fact, the rushed nature of the White Paper and the last minute appointment of the Royal Commission membership are evidence enough to support that contention.
The Government hoped that, when forced to reverse that intention during certain negotiations that took place in the latter part of last year, they could achieve the same objective by a fast stitch-up of a Royal Commission. How agreeable that in my noble friend—as so often in the past during a most distinguished career—they have completely misjudged their man.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it is, as always, a great pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I have done so before quite often and I suspect that I shall do so again. Indeed, we have almost become a double act, though I fear I know which of us is Laurel and which of us is not.
Not only do I agree very much with the opening remarks made by the noble Viscount; I think he will find that there is a fair measure of agreement between the two of us. Perhaps if he and I had been left alone, who knows what might have happened? However, there it is. We are all prisoners of our own parties to that extent.
The noble Viscount said that an era was coming to an end. It is. He said that we should not be mawkish. I shall not be mawkish, but I must put on record at the beginning of what I have to say to the House that anyone who has even a smattering of historical knowledge of British history over the past 400 or 500 years cannot but be impressed at the role that the
960
hereditary peerage and the families played in that process. It has been fundamentally part of our constitution for long.
However, I agree with noble Lords that the time has now come. The Government's approach is a major step and greatly to be applauded. It is making a start on an historic reform which will do great credit to the Prime Minister, his Government, and potentially this House. My aim today is to stand back a little and try to explore some of the principles and objectives which should guide reform to ensure that it is genuinely durable.
The Government's approach is a major step forward because it starts this historic process. For nearly 90 years, governments have avoided full reform, leaving unanswered questions about the overall shape of Parliament; questions which have their origins in the coming of the democratic age in the last century. The House of Lords is, or should be, the second most important democratic institution in this country after the House of Commons. Reform needs to ensure that it is.
In that context, I extend a general welcome to the White Paper process and to the Royal Commission. These and the contribution which this House can make may enable us to solve permanently the seemingly intractable challenge of Lords reform. It is one of those issues that at first sight looks simple: you can do it at a stroke; all it needs is to pass an Act. Having concerned myself now for some years with the problem, I know that it is one of the most complicated, complex and challenging problems that I have yet come across.
Since the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, raised the issue yesterday, perhaps I may make it clear that I have supported a Royal Commission on the issue for many years. I note with some mild amusement that it is now collecting other progenitors among my former colleagues. I have said many times that the Royal Commission should be open and in public as far as possible and I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, took the opportunity yesterday to underline that. The Cranborne/Weatherill agreement is to be welcomed for the important fact that it links stages one and two—a fact which the Conservative Front Bench in another place seemed to be initially slow to recognise. However, with the perception that is well known in your Lordships' House, the Benches opposite naturally recognised that rather earlier.
What should be the objective of House of Lords reform? In my view it can be expressed quite simply: it should be to strengthen Parliament as a whole. Almost any constitutional observer would agree that in the United Kingdom the Executive exercises stronger control over the House of Commons than in any comparable country. That is the fundamental fact to remember in looking at overseas examples. Reducing the scale of central power is or ought to be the main priority for constitutional reformers. This principle—the vital need to hand power from the centre to the citizen—underpins Labour's whole constitutional programme. It incorporates devolution, human rights, new forms of voting, local and regional government, freedom of information and reform of your Lordships' House.

961
In that sense, the transitional House will be more legitimate and that is a step forward too. But the crucial test will be whether the stage two House is strong enough to be what Hugo Young in the Guardian called,
"a meaningful actor in the creative tension between the executive and legislative branches".
As I see it there are three main reasons for reform of your Lordships' House. First, the rationale for a House of hereditary Peers has gone. However, as I hope I made clear, that does not mean that their contribution should be belittled. The challenge now is to make something positive out of the passing of the hereditary peerage, to find a rationale for a new composition which all—including hereditary Peers—can accept as an improvement in our democratic and parliamentary structure. That is the first reason.
Secondly, the House is politically unbalanced. As a party matter, everyone knows that this is politically unfair, but it is more than that. It distorts the business of revising legislation. A fixed and permanent dominance by one side robs the House of its political credibility. Its stance becomes all too often a product of the tactical approach of one party only. If that party overdoes it, legislative scrutiny becomes political routine. If it stays its hand, issues can go unraised. If it held its hand totally, the House would be neutered.
But, thirdly, imbalance is only part of the problem. Most importantly—as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said—the lack of legitimacy of the House means that the second Chamber cannot perform as effectively as it should. Nor is it sufficiently accountable for what it does. Its composition bedevils this House: either its lack of legitimacy has prevented it from using its powers or, when it has done so, its composition has become the issue—not the issue that the House purported to deal with.
The effect in all those circumstances is to raise the political stakes. Every defeat for a Conservative government is a political rebuff. Every defeat for a Labour government is an outrage. The issues in question can get lost. The normal give and take of legislating in a two-chamber system—taken for granted in other systems—becomes highly dramatised in ours, when even a small issue can come to be seen as a major political challenge to the government of the day. That is not just in relation to legislation. Scrutiny and investigative work can, if they are politically uncongenial to the Government of the day, be dismissed on the ground (often unspoken) of the irrelevance or illegitimacy of the House's membership. In this country we have virtually a unicameral system. It works as it does because one House—this one—does not use the powers that in theory it has.
In a reformed Parliament the supremacy of the House of Commons is vital. The aim of reform should be to strengthen the second Chamber to the point where it has the legitimacy vis-à-vis the government of the day to carry out its functions properly but not to threaten the position of the House of Commons. How one squares that particular circle is crucial to the whole argument. I believe that this requires a number of elements: first, that both Houses should have a democratic and representative composition appropriate to their functions;, that their respective compositions should
962
place them in the right balance with each other: and that within that balance the powers of the second Chamber are such that it can properly perform its functions. also believe that those functions should be clearly delineated; and that in what it does the second Chamber should be able actively to assist the first in its key democratic roles.
Any model for composition should, therefore, meet the following criteria: the superiority of the Commons should not be challenged; there should continue to be independent Members of the second Chamber; and no one party should be able to command a majority here.
Some of the issues in the White Paper relating to direct and indirect election perhaps need to be disentangled a little. In paragraph 33 in Chapter 8 the White Paper comments rather disparagingly on a partly-elected Chamber and the work of the committee under the late Lord Home. While the Government have named no preference—I believe quite rightly so—the White Paper appears to stress the advantages of a nominated House perhaps with the addition of a few indirectly elected Members. This has certainly appeared to be the direction in which Ministers have briefed the press. Whether the Royal Commission will be influenced in that direction remains to be seen. I hope that it will resist that temptation.
This is not the time to go into the specifics of stage two—that is very much for another day—except to say that there is more to the case for an element of direct election in this House than the paragraph I have just mentioned appears to suggest. I hope to have more to say on that topic at a later stage but not today. What is vital is that the composition, functions and powers are a unified package. Fundamental to this is clarification of the respective functions and powers of the two Houses. In this context I was delighted to hear my noble friend the Leader of the House confirm specifically that the powers of the House are within the remit of the Royal Commission.
This House performs a number of functions. If one categorises them there are perhaps five functions, although the first does not really find a place in the White Paper. Apart from the judicial role, those functions are: first, a constitutional check and balance in particular in the work of revising major Bills; secondly, revising legislation; thirdly, scrutinising the Executive; fourthly, investigating issues that may not interest the Commons or are perhaps too sensitive for that Chamber; and, finally, debating national issues where the fate of the government does not hang on the result. All those functions are important. Others can and probably should be added as the terms of reference of the Royal Commission indicate.
The White Paper makes reference to better European scrutiny. As a former commissioner, I can attest to the strength and value of the work of the European Communities Committee. This area is a prime example of where the second Chamber could take on a strengthened role on behalf of Parliament as a whole. So, too, could it take on a. scrutiny role in relation to human rights, including perhaps a special responsibility in relation to legislation that affects human rights. In the

963
same way, a reformed House could have a special role in relation to constitutional Bills, as the Labour Party suggested in its 1992 manifesto. Again, this would be an important safeguard in a country with an unwritten constitution. There are many ways in which the core role of a second Chamber—legislative and executive scrutiny—can be improved on behalf of Parliament as a whole: for example monitoring the implementation of legislation to see whether it meets its objectives.
The Royal Commission is asked in the White Paper to,
"take particular account of … the newly-devolved institutions".
I understand that aim but to add a few Members indirectly elected by the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly is not the only, or indeed the best, way in which the second Chamber can act as the focal point for the Union. There can be ways of representing the devolved areas and regions more strongly than the White Paper suggests, binding the Union together better without reopening some of the questions over devolution as indirect elections may do.
There is a crucial gap between the theoretical powers of the House and how they are exercised in practice. As the White Paper says, the preferable approach may be to reduce the powers and to recognise that they may in consequence be used more frequently. The outcome needs to be that we have a working second Chamber that can do its job but whose powers cannot fundamentally threaten the position of the Commons. Thus, for example, there should be no question of the second Chamber regaining any of its former financial powers. The scope of the Parliament Acts should be rationalised, as should the powers of the second Chamber over statutory instruments. Reform will make the second Chamber more troublesome to the Commons. This is inevitable and, provided the second Chamber has proper legitimacy and credibility, it is not only inevitable but right; otherwise, one may as well have a unicameral system of government.
The Government should not be afraid to learn from the thoughts of other parties. That principle underlay my attempt to talk to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. This is not the time to revisit why those talks did not produce an agreed reform as I had hoped, but they represented a clear earnest on the part of the Government—certainly on my part—to pursue consensus on this issue. That is the spirit in which this issue should continue to be pursued. Everyone involved has a responsibility to play their part in achieving an historic and durable reform. We shall be judged harshly if we shirk that responsibility.
The Royal Commission requires vision. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is a man of vision and will provide that perspective. The Joint Committee of both Houses will also need some vision. Members of this House can play a role in shaping that vision. This is a rare opportunity, which occurs once a century in British political life, to settle the proper relationship between the two Houses of our Parliament. I believe that sensible and durable constitutional settlement is within our grasp, but it will require determination and a clear decision by the Government that that is really what we are about.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, this House has rightly devoted a substantial amount of time to this issue. By the end of today's sitting there will have been over 200 speeches made on this issue taking account of yesterday's and today's debates and the debates last October. I believe that it has been conceded by the majority of those who have spoken that hereditary Peers will be excluded from this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, pointed out, the issue before us now is what kind of House we shall have in future after the hereditaries have left us.
That brings me to the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and his colleagues. Certainly, we welcome the efforts that they have made to ensure that we do not all become involved in a prolonged and bitter battle—perhaps some kind of political scorched-earth policy—this Session. Nevertheless, as my noble friend Lord Rodgers pointed out yesterday, we were not involved in these discussions in any way whatever. Accordingly, if and when these proposals are put before the House we will discuss them on their merits.
We are in no way committed to the details of the plan. Indeed, we see a number of difficulties arising from it. First, we see little or no justification for making such a large increase in the number of Conservatives in this House. Secondly, and on a more detailed point, it seems a little odd that if a hereditary Peer, elected to remain in this House, dies, the other elected hereditaries of his party will choose his successor. As regards the two Labour hereditaries who will remain in this House, that means that there will be an electoral college of one person. That seems a rather modestly sized electoral college.
I turn now to the appointment of the Royal Commission. We welcome it unreservedly. However, it is a great pity that it was not appointed last autumn. The target date for its report of 31st December of this year would then have been entirely realistic. I do not believe that it is now a realistic date. It is difficult to see how the Royal Commission will be able to find adequate time to analyse the many different proposals that will be put to it in the few months available to it. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said yesterday that this matter has been argued over for a number of years and therefore it will be a fairly simple task for the Royal Commission to form a view on the matter. One has only to look at the debate in the House of Commons to see that there is no realistic prospect of a small group of clearly defined proposals being considered over the few months available to the Royal Commission.
I shall now touch on one of the great difficulties that I believe will face the Royal Commission. It is the proposal, or suggestion, that the new House should become wholly elected. That proposal was put forward in the House of Commons by Sir Edward Heath—a person for whom many of us have the highest regard—and subsequently by others. The arguments for that proposition are self-evident. Such an assembly would have a very high degree of democratic validity. I have no doubt that a number of colleagues in this House will

965
believe that it is the right way to proceed. I suspect that it will also have some appeal to the court of public opinion.
But ranged against that idea is a fairly persuasive case. First, would not all Cross-Benchers be automatically excluded from the House given that situation? Would it not become merely a pale imitation of the House of Commons? Alternatively, armed with democratic validation and possibly elected by a different electoral system than that of the House of Commons, the opposition parties might be in a majority here. They could embark on a very vigorous confrontation with the Government in the House of Commons. I express no final conclusion on that issue, but I do not see how it can he argued that this House should become wholly elected and at the same time argue that the House of Commons should be pre-eminent. Those two concepts are in conflict with one another. That has to be recognised by those who put forward the proposal.
I now turn to some of the issues set out in the Government's White Paper. I find myself in sharp disagreement with a number of them and with what the Government have suggested. I accept their argument on others. I begin with the area of agreement between us. One of the most important is contained in Chapter 7, paragraph 26.
There is a great deal to be said for some form of formal conciliation process when there are disputes between the two Chambers of a kind that exists in the United States between the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. That is a better idea than, to quote the White Paper,
"the somewhat adversarial shuttle of business which takes place at present".
There is a very good example of that process, which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will recall as clearly as I do. That is the argument that we had regarding English and other students attending Scottish universities. That matter could have been handled quite easily if there had been some form of conciliation process. As it was, we had endless and fairly bitter debates in this House. The matter shuttled between one Chamber and the other. As I have made clear, I believe that there is much to be said for what the Government say in the White Paper on that particular issue.
Having said that by way of introduction, I must make it clear that on a number of other issues I part company from the Government. Perhaps I may give two examples. The first is the rather ominous wording contained in Chapter 7, paragraph 25. I do not like the suggestion that in a reformed House, possibly one with a more democratic basis, we should consider,
"institutionalising the understandings under which the present House of Lords operates; leaving the powers intact but restricting the circumstances in which they might be used".
When the noble Lord, Lord Carter, winds up at the end of this debate perhaps he can tell us what those words suggest. Read together with the final section of paragraph 26, it could clearly mean that the capacity of this House to reject secondary legislation would be removed and a power of delay substituted. As far as we are concerned, that is out of the question.
966
When the Government speak about,
"institutionalising the understandings under which the present House of Lords operates",
I tell the Government quite bluntly that as regards our powers over statutory instruments these so-called "understandings" have never been accepted by these Benches and they have not been accepted by marry others in this House. They were adopted by the then Labour opposition for the perfectly understandable reason that it did not want a future Conservative opposition, with its in-built majority in this House, challenging its secondary legislation. Over a period of 18 years the Conservative government was perfectly happy to go along with that arrangement. So much for the so-called institutionalised conventions. It was a coalition of convenience between the two major parties in this House.
I now come to the second area of disagreement with the Government. It appears as a subsection of paragraph 26 of the White Paper. It states that another area where the powers of a second Chamber might be looked at include—and I quote it in full—
"arrangements to give government Bills introduced … into the second chamber the same protection as those introduced … into the House of Commons, so removing an artificial restraint on the management of Parliamentary business".
"Artificial restraint" is a curious choice of words. It must have occurred to the person who drafted that particular sentence that the so-called "artificial restraint" is based on the rather obvious fact that this House is not elected and the other House is. Mr. Asquith and his non-Conservative successors would not have dreamt of introducing highly controversial legislation here because their followers were always in a minority—often in a tiny minority. The idea, which is clearly proposed in that sentence, with its reference to giving the Government's Bills introduced here "the same protection" as Bills given a Second Reading in the House of Commons, is presumably, in some way to introduce a Parliament Act protection for such legislation. But, surely, this cannot make sense. One of the few ways in which it could be done would be to give Ministers some kind of power to certify Lords' Bills, thus weakening still further the authority of a reformed House of Lords. Perhaps I may make it quite clear that we see great difficulties over arty such procedure.
Of course, I understand the problems facing the Government on this whole range of issues. They will have to get the recommendations of the Royal Commission, modified as they may be by a Select Committee, through the House of Commons. And remembering only too well the consequences of the Foot-Powell coalition in 1968, they will, 1 am sure, want to be cautious. That is why there have been so many references in the White Paper to the House of Commons remaining pre-eminent. We must recognise that the House of Commons is a far less self-confident institution than it was in the 1960s. Its Members see real power slipping away. They see them slipping away to devolved parliaments and assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and possibly in the future to similar assemblies in the English regions. They see the

967
Strasbourg Parliament increasing its powers. And now they see a reform of the House of Lords possibly encouraging the new House to be far more assertive over the powers it will possess.
The Government therefore face a host of forbidding difficulties. Increasingly, it will become evident that some of the most vociferous opponents of reform of this House will be Members of the House of Commons. Again, as Sir Edward Heath said, the Government Chief Whip in the Commons will face an extremely difficult task. Yet, now we are embarked on this process of reform, it is essential that the Government do not lose their nerve. For what we have to establish is a second Chamber with real authority in a number of clearly defined areas and one which will possess adequate powers to act as a real check on future executives. And that is a challenge not only for the Government but for all of us.
4.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, we have listened today to three substantial contributions from three Members of your Lordships' House who are held in high repute and who have great political experience. My contribution will not have the same constitutional substance and my total absence of political experience will be all too evident. However, I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for 15 years and I have counted it a great privilege to belong to this body. I mean "privilege" not in the sense of wearing scarlet and ermine but, if I may use a phrase which is not too grandiose, of being able to be of service to the nation. That is one of the reasons why we sit in your Lordships' House.
As your Lordships know, the service involves hard work. A great deal of reading is required in order to be on top of a subject. There is a great deal of talking and listening. It also requires long hours—on more than one occasion I have moved an amendment in your Lordships' House at three o'clock in the morning, not sure whether it was the end of the day before or the beginning of the day after! The main point I wish to make is that this element of service is stressed by the fact that we undertake the work unpaid. I have not heard much discussion about the question of payment, but it is a feature of your Lordships' House which is of great significance and which I very much hope will continue because it underlines the point that we are offering service to the nation.
The White Paper makes clear that Bishops originally came into your Lordships' House because they held large territories. That is no longer the case, although in my part of the world in Yorkshire the countryside is littered with names such as Bishopside and Bishopdale. They are memories of a long gone age. We sit in your Lordships' House with different concerns. Perhaps we bring a note of moral concern to the issues facing us, although I know that other Members also do that. But Bishops are distinctive in this House for one particular reason: that we are the only ex officio Members. We leave the House when we leave office. That has the weakness that we are working Bishops and cannot
968
therefore be working Members of your Lordships' House; we can be here only occasionally. It has the strength that we bring knowledge, experience and views from every part of the land and, through our clergy and parishes, from virtually every part of society.
I warm to the notion in Chapter 8 of the White Paper that the new constitution of the House should embody a number of sources through which people reach membership. I suggest that the ex officio source might be used more widely. I note that Chapter 8 discusses extensively both nomination and election, but I do not find anywhere a mention of the possibility of the ex officio source being used.
It is clear that this House needs to have democratic legitimation, but I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Richard, stress not only the democratic nature of the House but also the necessity for it to be representative. There is always the danger of democracy, the voice of the people and rule by the people, degenerating into majority domination and minority oppression. Your Lordships' House needs to stand as an independent House which will not allow that to happen.
I applaud the determination set out in the White Paper not to allow any one party to dominate. I also applaud the determination to strengthen the role of Cross-Benchers. However, I also note that on page 18, which sets out the present political composition of the House, there are five categories; there are the three political parties (Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat), the Cross-Bench category and a category termed "other". I am not entirely clear who falls into the category of "other". Rather oddly, it mentions Peers who have not taken the party Whip. I had not understood that Cross-Benchers took a party Whip. However, among the category of "other" are to be found the Bishops and members of the Royal Household. Indeed, there is a total of 128, but I am not sure from where the other members of the category come.
It indicates that it is not only the Cross-Benchers who provide a note of independence that is so important in your Lordships' House. I picked up a list of speakers from the Whips Office to find that opposite the name of each noble Lord speaking in the debate there was a category—Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Cross-Bench—and I found opposite the names of the two Bishops speaking the letters IND. I hope that they stand for "independent", although the imagination could run riot with other explanations!
However, my point is that the independent element in this House is of enormous importance. I am suggesting that that degree of independence might be secured more firmly by considering the use of the ex officio source as a way of Members entering your Lordships' House. Bishops have been glad to play their part in your Lordships' proceedings over many centuries. We hope that the new constitution of the House will allow us to continue our contribution.
4.10 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the Government are determined to modernise Britain. They appear to want to make this country more like other countries whose constitutions have been held up to us as enviable models but some of whom actually envy us our old-fashioned, out-of-date form of government. I wonder whether the Government have ever noticed that, for all we are out of date, we have been singularly blessed in this country. Leaving Ireland out of it, we have been fortunate enough to enjoy stable government for a very long time—approximately 300 years in England and Wales and about 250 in Scotland for which stable government can only be said to date from after the.45 rebellion. Still, that is no mean record when considering other countries around the world which have a long enough history to be compared with Great Britain. I cannot think of one which, during the last 250 years, has not had at least one revolution, civil war or coup d'átat. If any noble Lord can argue the contrary I shall be delighted to give way. Yet our constitution, unwritten as it is, has not been static. Much has changed over that period, but it has evolved a little at a time and each reform been assimilated and problems arising have been dealt with before another round of changes has been embarked upon.
Now a government with too big a majority and too little sense have embarked on wholesale reform of everything, all at once, all in one Parliament. What is more, they are in such a hurry that they even grudge the time spent discussing the proposed reforms, for which they are entirely to blame. If other matters lose out it is their fault, not ours.
Separate parliaments for component parts of the United Kingdom have been legislated for at the same time as it is proposed to change the composition of this House without any certainty of what its future form will be. Is this wise? It seems to me folly to try to change the structure of the United Kingdom Parliament at the same time as you change the structure of the United Kingdom, and above all folly to try to reduce the power of Parliament to control the executive. One of the most important functions of Parliament is to keep the executive—that is, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, and particularly his kitchen cabinet—under control. They are supposed to be answerable to Parliament, to both Houses of Parliament.
In a situation where the Government have too large a majority, as now, and where increasingly the Members of another place are not chosen locally but are imposed upon local associations by the party machines—and I think all the parties are guilty nowadays of doing that—you are apt to get a situation where an MP's first loyalty is to his party instead of to his constituents, as it used to be, and consequently he is incapable of saying boo to a ministerial goose. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, enlarged on this phenomenon yesterday. That is what has happened in this Government in another place. Of course it suits the executive. The only fly in the ointment, as far as they are concerned, is this House where even those who take the party Whips cannot always be relied on to vote with the party because there are no sanctions.
970
I might just add here that I am tired of hearing the Government say that the Cross-Benches are not independent; that they always vote with the Conservatives. Many of us do frequently vote against the Government, but that is because we believe the Government to be wrong. The Government should blame themselves, instead of accusing the Cross-Benchers of being closet Tories.
What is becoming transparently clear is that this Government are very intolerant indeed of opposition or criticism. This House, and the hereditary Peers in particular, provide plenty of both. So having got rid of us they would have a clear run at producing a second Chamber which would rubber stamp any Bill the government of the day wished to pass through Parliament and might even be prepared to consent to another place prolonging the life of a Parliament indefinitely. That is the high road to dictatorship, tyranny and totalitarian government, and, in the end, to civil unrest, rebellion and revolution which we have seen, over the past 200 to 300 years in almost every other country in the civilised world, with all the suffering and misery that such upheavals bring. We are going down a very dangerous road indeed. That is why I shall vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.
Going back to the proposals in the White Paper, I cannot say that I am very impressed with the argument that the proposed appointments commission will be independent of the Prime Minister. Who is going to appoint the appointments commission? Will it not be the Prime Minister, who will then be able to appoint people who will appoint people whom he wants appointed? If so, the proposed appointments commission is purely cosmetic. And it is not very effective make-up. It is quite easy to see the spots underneath it. If a committee of the Privy Council were to appoint the appointments commission, that would be a very different matter.
It is a pity that some members of the Government display such ignorance about the origins of so many hereditary peerages. They suggest that quite a number were created for the sons of Kings' mistresses. Only a handful were. I can only think of four or five out of about 750 hereditary Peers. The vast majority of hereditary Peers are descended from people who spent their lives in the service of their country, be it in the armed forces, in politics or local government, diplomacy, the law, science or medicine, business or charitable work. I decided to check the origins of the peerages of the hereditary Peers whose titles began with the letter A. I took out Debrett. I found 51. Of their newly ennobled ancestors, I found 18 politicians, two prominent in local government, five distinguished lawyers, three diplomats, two professors, four soldiers, three prominent businessmen and one heavily involved in charitable work. Seven were the descendants of Peers who had been Lords of Parliament in the pre-Union Scots Parliament; another five were the descendants of English Peers of similar vintage. I cannot remember the origin of the remaining one, but none had got their peerages for being kings' bastards.

971
Some may have made sizeable contributions to party funds. Debrett does not provide that kind of information, but neither does Debrett indicate how much various life barons may have contributed. On behalf of my fellow hereditary Peers, I deeply resent the slur cast on them and proliferated by the media. Most of us have great respect for the achievements of our predecessors, and few things make us more angry than slurs on their characters and integrity. I dare say not every member of the Government would like to have his predecessors examined too closely, but that is a game two could play at if we were prepared to sink so low. It is a pity that the Government have seen fit to sink to the spite and meanness evinced both in their White Paper and during the Second Reading of their Bill in another place.
Should the Royal Commission turn out to be a truly impartial body it might consider keeping a sensible number of hereditary Peers to be elected on the lines along which the Scots Peers themselves elected 16 of their number to represent them in this House between 1707 and 1964. It was an excellent system because it weeded out very successfully anyone who was useless or undesirable, or who was not prepared to attend regularly. I enlarged on the workings of the Scottish Peers' election in the debate on reform of this House last October. I shall not weary your Lordships again with the details, but I shall make a submission of them to the Royal Commission for its consideration.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the speech of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and indeed all the speeches that have already been made in this debate. The two most outstanding, if my colleagues will allow me to say so, were those made at the outset by my noble friend Lord Cranborne and the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
All the speeches started to some extent with a recognition of the so-called "illegitimacy" of this House, founded in the first place upon the antiquity and eccentricity of the hereditary principle. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, presented a vigorous defence of that which shows that it need not be accepted at face value.
The second reason given is the existence of a so-called permanent blocking majority for the Right. That point also is often widely overstated. The fact is that if those two features are features of illegitimacy, it is very strange that they have been tolerated for so long. If they are as intolerable as they are said to be, why have they been tolerated for so long? It is because each of them has been exaggerated; because governments, for example, have only occasionally felt it necessary to exercise the powers that they have to override this House on specific occasions.
The predominant reason for their toleration, again as has been made manifest in earlier speeches, is because it is far from easy to improve legitimacy in a way that amounts to improvement. How can it be said with confidence that nomination is more theoretically legitimate than heredity? On the other hand, the further we move towards an elected element in this House the
972
more we risk further increasing the powers of dictatorship and diminishing our chances to check the elective dictatorship for which this House exists.
Curiously, it is the very "illegitimacy" of which we speak which has constrained this House for so long from pressing its role too far. This House has been unwilling to test or risk its authority beyond what is tolerable. That is a strikingly good example of the balance provided in our constitution, if not in many others, of the "conventions of the constitution".
Even so, my noble friend is anxious to promote the case for reform. I see why; because, I, too, wish to get away from these slurs and criticisms. But I am not sure that I share his confidence that the changes that may take place will necessarily improve the performance of the present structure. He was too modest in defending the virtues of the present structure. I can speak as someone who was leader of the other place for a short time and had some experience in other respects. How could the other place possibly survive without the impact made by this House on the quality of our legislation? Speaking as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, I wish that this House sometimes had a part to play in improving the Finance Bills rather than leaving them entirely to the jousting of the Finance Bill Standing Committee. The quality of debate in this House has been demonstrated by the quality of this debate so far—until I rose to my feet. So we need to be extremely careful before we tamper with these institutions.
Where is the mischief to which we are directing our energies? The only manifest mischief is the eccentricity of our composition. Yet it is just that which above all imposes the necessary constitutional restraint. If we are to be given more legitimacy, if that can be designed, I shall certainly expect us to be given more power rather than less. I entirely agree with my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Cranborne as well as with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon that the proposals for reducing existing powers would be quite unacceptable.
The question is how the Royal Commission, the Select Committee and this House will give more legitimacy, more substance and more style to this place. Ironically, I fancy that the real task facing the Royal Commission will be to come as close as it can to reproducing the style, spirit and substance of the present House, granted the removal of the element of illegitimacy.
Chapter 8 of the Government's White Paper comes close to acknowledging a large part of that case, though not in so many words. In that White Paper the advantages of elected membership are clearly seen, however tentatively, to be less than those of nomination. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, demonstrated in detail the dangers that may arise if this House were dominated by the elected element in the same way as the other place. I was struck by the reminder that many years ago, when Lord Home put forward his proposals for reform, he suggested that the Chamber should be two-thirds elected. I am glad that the Government, in the White Paper, see those proposals

973
as too radical. Lord Home was probably ignoring his own advice. He was fond of echoing a statement by Lord Balfour that "democracy is government by explanation"; that is not government by whipping. By that standard, this House is significantly more democratic than the other place.
How are we to retain the good institutions of this place? One way would be the survival of what has come to be known as "Lord Weatherill's compromise", on the basis that rien ne dure comme le provisoire. I am not sure that that will necessarily happen. If it did, it would be a further example of the benefits of incremental rather than fundamental change. It might be a less than surprising result of reform fatigue. It may be a place where we could stop at a different point from where we might otherwise have stopped. To that extent it is an advance.
I know that my noble friend Lord Wakeham will be looking for other ways of finding a broader basis of legitimacy. It is a good augury that the Royal Commission will meet not only under his chairmanship, but also will hold its first meeting on St. David's Day. I join the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon in his commendation of ex officio membership. It is an obviously successful precedent. It has been successful in the case of the Law Lords and the Bench of Bishops and could well be extended in a suitably broad-based ecclesiastical way to other faiths, Churches and even other people.
The question is who to add of that kind. It must be somebody who is not too busy, not too short-lived in his office, not too responsive to the party whip and who has the necessary degree of independence. If the Bishops and the Law Lords have done as well as they have, busy as they are, we should not rule out other people as well. Lord Mayors may be too short lived. Vice-Chancellors are not unrepresented here already. But we could look to the presidents of the TUC and CBI and similar categories.
Indirect election will be a better alternative than direct election, particularly if those elected in that way are given a long enough term of life to feel free from the restraint of the Whips hovering in the background. That will be particularly so if they are not elected on the form of electoral lists chosen by party bosses.
Two problems give me cause for concern. One is the age factor.. I am told that the current average age in this House is 67. If we were all of that age it would indeed be a terrible place. But we are hugely enlivened by the presence of the "golden oldies". I see one of them smiling at me in the form of my noble friend Lord Renton and another in the form of the noble Earl, Lord Longford. But the place is also enlivened by the presence of the young hereditaries.
How are we to retain this diversity of age structure? We should certainly reject the concept of ageism. The Royal Commission should look carefully at some way of replacing the young hereditaries. It is extremely hard to reproduce them except by natural means and that is going to be ruled out. Will it be possible to find special seats for the young, such as university seats or seats to which they can be nominated provided they are under
974
the age of 36, or seats sponsored by independent radio stations? I deliberately choose eccentric ideas. That is the way I believe we need to go.
The real question is how we are to reproduce the qualities that have made this House so successful— those of independence, courage, wisdom and vitality— and to do so in a way that will give us, the Commons and the nation sufficient confidence in our role in the future to maintain and, if possible, increase our present powers.
4.29 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, will always be listened to, for many reasons, just one being his great service to the nation as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am glad that he rejected the concept of an age limit. A young man from the other place said to me the other day, "Aren't you a bit old in there?". He should come and listen to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the noble and. learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, not to mention many others. I am therefore glad that that argument has been rejected.
I recall that it was said of a famous philosopher—I believe it was Immanuel Kant; if not, I am sure I shall be, corrected—that he started from both ends of the road at once and never met himself in the middle. I start from three ends of the road. I taught academic politics for some years before the war at Christchurch, Oxford, first with a Conservative person and then a Labour person. In those days the House of Lords was a kind of constitutional anomaly which we discussed in an abstract way. Later, in the Labour Party, of which I have been a member for some 62 years, the House of Lords was regarded as an obstacle to progress. Those are two starting points. The third is that I have been a Member of this House for 53 years, and I have found this to be a wonderful place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, said recently that this House is a perfect place. I would not go so far as to say that, but like so many other noble Lords who have been here any length of time, I love this place and I regard its services to the nation as being beyond argument. Certainly, in the past 50 years nobody has been able to point to any harm it has done. One person stated that it delayed the abolition of capital punishment for eight years. That may be so, but let us think of the harm that has been done by other institutions, not too far away. By and large, I believe that this House has performed a great service to the nation. In that sense, it has to be taken most seriously when we talk about altering its whole character.
Considering this House from my experience, one is bound to be biased in its favour. In my view, the debates here are the most intellectual in the world. I do not believe that anyone has disputed that fact. At any rate, nobody has been able to point to debates elsewhere which are better than ours. This House has not only an intellectual quality, but many wonderful Members, many of them, but not all, life Peers. The debates have an inherent decency which attract people from all over

975
the world. In my opinion, that owes something—not just a little—to the hereditary Peers. I am not paying a half-hearted compliment to the hereditary Peers; I am saying that they have been of fundamental importance to the history of this place. Of course, there are other famous individuals here, but the whole tradition of this House has depended upon the continuity which has been sustained by the hereditary Peers.
This House has a Christian flavour which I do not think can be found in any other legislature of which I know. That is not its dominant flavour; nevertheless, it is strong. That applies, obviously, pre-eminently to the Bishops but also to the hereditary Peers. It can be illustrated by the house of Cecil, represented by the noble Viscount the former Leader of the Opposition. Those qualities which belong to the present House cannot just be thrown away because of a certain appeal to the man in the pub.
Nevertheless, one has to admit that there is no resisting the abstract argument that a man or a woman is not entitled to play a part in the legislature of this country because his or her father was a Member of this House. So, in the end, the House must be reformed, and we now approach these proposals. Nobody who believes in democracy, with all its imperfections, can resist the argument that reform must come.
Thirty years ago, as Leader of this House, I brought forward a proposal, the brainchild of Henry Burrows, an old friend of mine and a Clerk at the Table. We used to play golf together at Rye. Whenever I missed a putt, he would come up to me afterwards and say, "You do believe in the Two-Writ Plan, don't you?" That was rather upsetting. However, Henry Burrows produced that plan, which proposed that the hereditary Peers of first generation could come and speak here but not vote. That would preserve the tradition and continuity of this great Chamber. I still hope that somebody will bring that proposal forward, with more contemporary relevance. If not, I shall do so myself. I still believe that that is the best solution. However, it may well be that that is not adopted.
Then we have the deal. We have not heard much about the deal up until now. It sounds to me to be the best of a bad job. If I was an hereditary Peer, I would rather that some emerged from the deal than none. Therefore, I hope that the deal will go through. There are many complications. It seems to be dependent upon all sorts of strange, hypothetical conditions. I am not sure that it will pass through as easily as I hope.
In a year or two from now, there will not be many hereditary Peers remaining here, and much will be lost by that fact. However, that is bound to happen. It is, perhaps, like someone having an operation. One cannot rejoice at the fact of having an operation, but it may be inevitable. I hope and believe that in all the discussions regarding this House everyone who has ever been a Member of it—even the newest Members—will bear in mind that they are discussing something of which they will always be proud.

EMU: Outline National Changeover Plan
4.36 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"On 27th October 1997 my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out the Government's policy on the European single currency. He said he would publish details of how, should it choose to do so, Britain could join the euro. This became known as the National Changeover Plan. Today we publish an outline of this plan as a basis for consultation.
"I would like to thank the Standing Committee set up by the Chancellor to oversee preparatory work on EMU across the economy. I am most grateful to the Governor of the Bank of England, the Heads of the Financial Services Authority and the British Bankers Association, the Presidents of the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce and the General Secretary of the TUC for their contribution to this work. This has been a truly co-operative effort involving an unprecedented partnership between the public and private sectors. And I am particularly pleased that the Standing Committee welcomed our intention to produce the outline plan we are publishing today.
"Madam Speaker, in his Statement of October 1997, the Chancellor made clear the Government's view that membership of a successful euro would bring benefits to Britain in terms of jobs, investment and trade. He said that in principle the Government were in favour of Britain joining a successful single currency. And he set out the conditions necessary to satisfy our national economic interest.
"So our intention is clear. Britain should join a successful single currency, provided the economic conditions are met.
"It is conditional. It is not inevitable. Both intention and conditions are genuine.
"This is the right course for the country, to resolve this issue for the British national interest, the future of our people and their well-being. And it is that national interest that will always come first.
"I do not dismiss the constitutional or political issues. They are real. Monetary union is a big step of integration. But so was the Single European Act. And the EU itself. In finance and business the world is more and more integrated. It is moving closer together. And if joining a single currency is good for British jobs and British industry, if it enhances British influence and power, I believe it is right for Britain to overcome these constitutional and political arguments and the fears behind them. For the very reason of the sensitivity of these arguments, we have also said clearly: the Government can recommend. But the people will decide in a referendum.
"What we announce today is not a change of policy. It is a change of gear. If we wish to have the option of joining, we must prepare. The sheer nature,

977
scale, and complexity of the arrangements require considerable time for such preparation. It is, for example, far more detailed in its consequences than decimalisation. If we do not start to face this reality now, we will simply not have the practical means necessary to make a choice.
"There are those, on the Opposition Benches and elsewhere, who oppose the very idea of a national changeover plan. I say: we can no longer afford to pretend either that the euro does not exist or that Britain should not actively prepare for it. Such a denial of reality does not promote Britain's interests; it betrays them.
"The euro is a reality. It exists. Eleven out of 15 other EU members are in it. It represents 20 per cent. of world income, as big as the US. It will be the currency of 290 million people.
"It has begun and, on the whole, it has begun well. Of course, these are early days. There will be tests and strains ahead. But the launch was successful; and those who predicted it would never happen or would launch itself in disaster, have been proven wrong.
"And it will have a major impact on Britain, in or out. That much is obvious. That alone would rebuke those who would like to pretend it is not there. Fifty per cent. of our trade is with the eurozone. The launch of the euro means that an increasing number of UK firms are starting to use the euro—not just big business like British Steel, Ford, Philips, ICI and Unilever. Surveys by the Treasury's euro Preparations Unit show that some 45 per cent. of SMEs in the UK have trading links with Europe and they are already having to prepare to deal with the euro. The same survey showed that nearly half of all SMEs thought that the single currency would affect their business. Last autumn some 14 per cent. of SMEs were already planning to use the euro, and the latest survey by APACS showed that 247,000 companies intended to open euro accounts; 86 per cent. of large retailers have suppliers in the eurozone and 44 per cent. say they are planning to pay eurozone suppliers in euro from 1999. The euro is now an everyday reality for British business, large and small.
"When we came to office, we took immediate steps to help the country prepare. Since the Chancellor's Statement the Treasury has run a major information and direct mail campaign for the 1.6 million SMEs in the UK; 350,000 copies of the Treasury's business fact sheets have been distributed and there have been three-quarters of a million requests for the fact sheet leaflet; we have established 12 regional euro forums across the UK, led by senior business people, who are taking preparations forward at local level; firms can now pay taxes, file accounts, issue and redenominate shares, and receive certain grants in euros, and Customs and Excise has trained 10,000 staff to respond to business needs.
"Small businesses will have the help they need; the City of London is prepared and already taking a good share of euro-denominated business.
978
"But these are all preparations for the euro, with Britain, at present, out of it. It is also necessary now to prepare for Britain being in. If, as we have already announced, we want to keep open the option of making a decision early in the next Parliament to join, we need to step up our practical preparations now: hence, the national changeover plan.
"The public sector will give a clear sign of its commitment to prepare. Each department now has a Minister responsible for euro preparations and each will now report regularly on the preparations they are making.
"Where computer systems are being upgraded, all departments will build in euro-compatibility where that represents value for money. In the case of the DSS, the Inland Revenue, and Customs, the scale and complexity of their computer systems make advance preparations critical. Together, these departments are the main interface between central Government and the business community and deal with almost every individual in the UK. They may need to spend some money prior to a referendum to make their IT systems euro-compatible, so that we can maintain the flexibility for Britain to make the changeover as quickly and cost-effectively as possible.
"It is right that Parliament should be asked to give explicit approval to such expenditures, which will amount to some tens of millions of pounds spread over a number of years.
"We will therefore include provisions in the Finance Bill and the Social Security Bill which will authorise this spending; and of course there will be normal votes on the appropriation accounts.
"So the Government themselves will be making active preparations for the euro in the belief it will be in this country's interests to join in the future should our economic tests be met. Business should start to do the same.
"The national changeover plan sets out the range of work involved for different sectors; for example. in the retail financial sector the BBA and the APACS are leading work with the Bank of England on how to approach the conversion of their core IT systems. The retail sector more generally will be taking forward with consumers and suppliers work on a detailed code of practice on arrangements for the changeover. Businesses, large and small, need to focus on the impact of the euro on their business strategies.
"On the basis of this work, and after studying the experience of the first wave of participants, the outline plan that we are publishing today shows that it is possible to streamline the timetable adopted in Europe, with no disadvantage to our economy and some benefit. Overall, 'we believe it should be possible to move in four months from a government decision to a referendum; in 24 to 30 months from a positive referendum result to the introduction of notes and coins: with a further six months before sterling notes and coins are withdrawn.

979
"This means that the whole process from a positive referendum result to the withdrawal of sterling could be completed in around three years, considerably faster than the period required for the first wave of EMU participants. A great deal of further work needs to be done to refine and develop this timetable, and particularly to clarify how soon after a positive referendum result we could actually join EMU. As the plan makes clear, we are committed to taking this work forward in collaboration with business and the wider public sector, so that we can produce a further plan in about a year's time.
"I turn now to the economic tests the Chancellor set out on 27th October 1997. There is much focus, entirely natural, on the politics of the euro project. It is, of course, an intensely political act. But just as the euro cannot be conceived of, except politically; it cannot be made to work, except economically. It is, after all, an economic union.
"We have, as a Government, resolved the political issues, in favour of the principle of joining, should the economic tests be met. But they must be met. The manner in which we joined the ERM is a standing monument to the danger of joining a monetary arrangement on purely political grounds.
"There are two ideological and absolute positions on the euro which I do not share.
"The first is "No, never". It is to rule out Britain's membership of the euro on grounds of constitutional principle for always. It is perfectly principled. It argues, no matter what the benefits in terms of jobs or industry or even influence, such a decision is simply wrong, on grounds of sovereignty. I cannot accept this for the reasons I gave earlier: in the modern world, look around—technology, global finance, mass communication, to say nothing of travel and culture: this is a world moving together. Sovereignty pooled can be sovereignty, or at least power and influence, renewed. I suspect even if we were today to rule it out in principle and for ever, in a few years that ruling would itself come under question and in the meantime we would lose all influence whatsoever in the economic future of the EU of which we will remain a member.
"The second position is an unconditional "Yes, now". It is to say that economic conditions are meaningless and we should join regardless. But I believe the conditions are meaningful. It is precisely because the conditions are meaningful that we have said, to give some greater certainty to business and the country, that, barring unforeseen circumstances, we would not make a decision in this Parliament to recommend joining the euro.
"It is worth summarising the economic tests the Chancellor set out: sustainable convergence between the UK and countries within the euro-zone; flexibility to adapt to change in the UK and in continental Europe; the impact on investment and the UK financial services industry; and whether joining the single currency would be good for employment.
980
"Three points should be emphasised. The first is that economic convergence must be not momentary but, as far as we can accurately foresee, sustainable. We are still at a different stage of the economic cycle from the rest of Europe. But the difference between our official interest rates and theirs is narrowing. In October 1997, UK interest rates were at 7 per cent., with those in France and Germany at close to 3 per cent. UK interest rates are now at 5.5 per cent., compared to 3 per cent. for the euro area. The difference between our long-term interest rates and theirs is also falling, and is now down to around half a per cent. Long-term interest rates are now around their lowest for 40 years. Our inflation performance is consistent with the European Central Bank's definition of price stability. But it is essential that convergence is settled and sustainable. We cannot say that yet.
"Moreover, for decades, we have been prone to far greater swings in the economic cycle than our continental counterparts. It has been boom and bust. It has enormously damaged investment and reduced our ability to grow without hitting an inflationary ceiling at relatively low levels of growth.
"There is now an entirely new framework for economic management in place. Bank of England independence has at long last given us credibility in interest rate decisions, as well as low interest rates; and there are new fiscal rules that the Chancellor has relied upon to slash the £28 billion borrowing requirement and the ballooning national debt we inherited and to put us on a path of fiscal prudence. This new framework is a revolution in economic management for Britain. On its foundation, we have then put in place measures to boost education, skills, technology and productivity, measures to enhance the ability of business to grow and prosper. But we need to get through this more difficult part of the economic cycle and emerge stronger. For Britain to join the euro, it must be from a position of sustained economic strength.
"The second point is that these are early days for the euro itself. It is sensible to see how it settles down and how the ECB steers a path consistent with both strong economic discipline and the avoidance of deflation. Thirdly, it will take some time to make clear a judgment about whether the direction of economic reform in Europe will enable us to meet the tests we have set out, particularly on flexibility and jobs.
"Europe has a choice. Most of the countries in high and persistent levels of The Asian crisis has brought home to EU the fragility of the new world of Our world economy is more than ever before. The EU is not itself: but with the whole of the world "Europe has Europe have unemployment. all of us in the globalisation. interdependent competing with from Asia to America.
"The single currency alone will not make Europe prosperous. The single currency, plus fundamental reform in labour, capital and product markets and in our welfare systems, can do so.

981
"Economic reform is crucial, not just to the success of Britain's participation in the euro but to the euro itself. I understand the worries of those who, while not ruling out the euro in principle, are nonetheless concerned about the type of eurozone we might be joining. This is a real question. We must be sure the EU is moving forwards, not backwards. There are real problems in the EU and Britain can play a part in the solution.
"The economic reform programme includes the action plans which were started at our Cardiff Economic Council. They require labour market reform through greater flexibility; capital market reform through a European venture capital industry; and product market reform through extending competition and strengthening the single market. We are determined that these must be in place.
"The way to provide social protection today is not more and more regulation or high business costs and taxes; it is through making our workforce highly adaptable, more employable and better skilled; through encouraging the development of technology; promoting small businesses; and making our welfare systems help people off benefit and into work, with specific measures to combat social exclusion. We need a new social model for a new European reality.
"I want a Britain strong, economically disciplined: with boom and bust eradicated; flexible, competitive anti dynamic. And I want us in a Europe that at best is moving firmly in the same direction, rather than trying to hold us back. A vision that lets us adapt the European social model to the new realities of global commerce. A vision that binds the EU and America closer together and lets us learn from one another.
"We have stated as a matter of government policy that in principle Britain should join a successful single currency. That principle is real. The practical preparations we have set out are real. The conditions—necessary so that we proceed with caution and with common sense an in our own interests—are real. And we have set out a vision of Europe's future.
"We have a vision, but it is a vision that is practical. We should have confidence in Britain, in our vision and in our pragmatism. I commend the Statement to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at the outset, perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. It was a long Statement and was technical; indeed, at times, I felt that it was slightly contradictory. However, because of its length, we shall need to study it further. On the last occasion that the noble Baroness repeated a Statement, I failed to ask for a debate on the subject at the time—a fact that was held against me when I came to ask for such a debate through the usual channels. Therefore, perhaps I may make it quite clear now that we on this side of the House expect an early debate on the matter, so that we can discuss such issues in full and call the Government to account.
982
It is most appropriate that this Statement should have been made this afternoon, while we are discussing one of the more fundamental constitutional issues—namely, that of the reform of Parliament and the strengthening of Parliament. This, too, is a fundamental constitutional issue. However, I wonder how many noble Lords would recognise the following words and, indeed, who said them. They were reported in the Sun on 17th April 1997. I quote:
"I know exactly what the British people feel when they see the Queen's head on a £10 note. I feel it too. There's a very strong emotional tie to the Pound which I fully understand".
Of course, that was a Prime Minister in training; namely, Mr. Tony Blair, writing exclusively for the Sun newspaper before he was resoundingly elected a few days later by millions of people who thought that they would not live to see the day that such a Statement was made.
Under the rules that we have for Statements, I shall confine the rest of my remarks to questions for the Minister, which I hope she will be able to answer. However, if she is unable to do so, I shall expect to receive the usual letter which is normally forthcoming after these events. First, is it not fundamental to the issue of joining the euro that nothing should be done before the British people have given their consent in a referendum'? Therefore, are we not witnessing the start of a campaign, which will bully the British people into believing what the Prime Minister this afternoon has said is not so; namely, that there is an inevitability about this process? Therefore, are we now to understand that, in practice, the Government's policy is not "whether" but "when" we join the euro? Would it not be so much more sensible and honest to say so?
Secondly, does the noble Baroness have any idea when the Government propose to have a referendum on the policy for which they are committing money today? I note that the Statement confirmed that the decision would not be taken in this Parliament. Does that mean that there will be no referendum Bill until after the general election—assuming that the Labour Party win such an election? If there is a changeover plan, there is presumably a target date for entry into the euro. I do not suppose that the noble Baroness would share that with us now. Nevertheless, it would be helpful to probe the Government's mind on their thinking as regards timing.
Thirdly, I turn to the question of cost. Many costs are involved in the Statement which has been made today. Can the Minister say how much money is being committed to the propaganda campaign for the euro? Further, can she tell the House whether any money spent in the changeover campaign will be coming from the European Commission or indeed from other EU funds, which will therefore deny other projects the spending that they were promised? Of course, the costs are not just those associated with propaganda. For example, how much will it cost the public sector to prepare for the euro, money which will be paid for by taxpayers? Moreover, how much will it cost the private sector—money which, of course, will be paid for by consumers?
Fourthly, can the Minister say what studies have been carried out—I am sure that many have been commissioned by the Treasury in recent months—

983
regarding the total estimated cost of putting forward this plan, whether or not it is ultimately accepted by the British people? I also have a question about shadowing the euro. It is my understanding that the Maastricht Treaty requires countries preparing to join the euro to shadow it for two years. Is that also the understanding of the noble Baroness? Indeed, do the Government have any plans to shadow the euro? Will she undertake to inform the House in a Statement at once of any plan to shadow the euro, given its huge economic and political significance? Will the noble Baroness also confirm that no instructions on this matter have been given to the Bank of England?
Finally, in his extensive morning briefing on this announcement, the Prime Minister's press secretary said that there was a "change of gear", as we heard again in the Statement, and that this "change of gear" was about giving Britain a choice. The word "choice" is an important one. What work therefore is being done to prepare for the possibility that Britain will not agree to join the euro? What information is being given to various organisations to provide people with the kind of information to offer them that real choice? What thought is being given to ways in which the United Kingdom and UK business could use the economic freedom they would retain if they kept the pound? Is not the changeover plan really what it has already been described as; namely, a national handover plan and evidence that the Government have taken this historic decision to push for abolition of the pound before Parliament and people have been consulted?
In more ways than one this is a sad day. I am no Eurosceptic but I fear very much that the decision which has been taken today is a decision that has every possibility of being paid for in the loss of livelihoods, a lowering of living standards and the loss of jobs. It also fundamentally affects our ability to control our affairs. It is a day to be regretted. However, I very much look forward not only to the noble Baroness's response but also to the confirmation that there will be a full debate at the earliest possible opportunity.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in endorsing the idea of a debate although I should have thought he might prefer to avoid that experience. It will be interesting to discover when the time comes how his non-Euroscepticism shows, and how far his Benches are able to follow him on that. I doubt whether they will follow him more closely on it than on the other matters which your Lordships are discussing today.
At first sight—that is all one can say—this is an important, welcome and yet at the same time a curiously unsatisfactory Statement. Indeed it is less of a Statement than a speech, both in its length—I do
984
not complain about that—and in its tone. I hope that my next remark will not upset the noble Baroness. I quote the final sentence of the Statement,
"We have a vision, but it is a vision that is practical. We should have confidence, both in our vision and our pragmatism".
That is a sentence worthy of Harold Wilson at his most equivocal when backing Britain going into the European Community a generation ago and only half admitting it. It would have been far better had the Statement been a ringing call of some kind, but it is not that at all. The general flavour of it is two steps forward and one step back. There are the announcements and the detail, which I do not wish to quarrel with, but all hedged around with conditions. If they are not new, why was it necessary to repeat them, except essentially as a nervous prelude to aspects of the Statement which might be rather less popular?
There were times when the Statement seemed like a prelude, another prelude to yet another missed opportunity. Certainly the timetable is extremely disappointing, although I shall ask the noble Baroness in a moment to make rather more explicit some matters which are certainly not clear to me. The Statement states,
"we want to keep open the option of making a decision early in the next Parliament".
It does not say that a decision will be made, or what it is likely to be. As I say, it is a Statement hedged around with reservations of a kind which I should have thought at this stage in this Parliament the Government would have done better to avoid.
As regards the timetable, on my calculation if no decision is to be made until after the election, and there is a gap of four months until a referendum, and then a period of two-and-a-half to three years before sterling is withdrawn, it seems to me the change is likely to be accomplished in 2005 or later. Will the noble Baroness confirm that that is the kind of timetable, looked at as a whole, which makes sense? If that is the case, the change would be accomplished more than half-way through the next Parliament. I should have thought that the wrong time to complete a change of this importance. It would have been far better, if a decision to join were made this year, for a referendum to be held the following year, and the early years of the next Parliament used to implement the decision, assuming it was endorsed by the British people. There are all kinds of indications that the momentum is there. Given some leadership from the Government we could have moved forward to a quick, easy and plain decision which would have had the widespread support of the nation.
However, if this Statement leaves no song in my heart, it would be ungenerous to appear to be other than supportive of the noble Baroness and the Government, faced with the alternative—if that is what it proved to be—of supporting the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and, in particular the Conservative Party's Treasury spokesman, Francis Maude, whose comments earlier today I thought were wholly inappropriate and showed how far the Conservative Party is out of touch with political and economic

985
reality. I welcome the Statement so far as it goes. I feel a degree of disappointment that it does not go far enough.
5.6 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken for what I would describe as their acceptance if not welcome of the Statement. If I may say so, both have fallen into precisely the ideological and absolute positions on the euro which the Prime Minister described in the Statement, which I repeated, the first being "no, never" and the second "yes, now". As I hope the Statement explained, this is precisely the course that we hope responsibly to travel between.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, felt once again sad about the Statement. It seems to be his permanent psychological state at the moment. I regret that, given that yesterday we all celebrated his birthday. I attended the presentation of the Statement by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place and I believe that the noble Lord would have been perhaps not surprised at but certainly out of tune with the reception that the Statement was given by the previous deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Heseltine, and the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Clarke. However, we know of course that this is not something—like the constitutional issue which we are also discussing this afternoon—on which the party opposite is united.
I, of course, accept both noble Lords' requests for a full debate on this subject. It is right that we should discuss it. It is a momentous and important Statement. The timing would, of course, be for the usual channels, but I am grateful that they both raised the point in principle. I am sure that we shall be able to carry that forward through the usual channels.
I must refer briefly to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as regards the Queen's head on the coinage. This was something I had not followed until I attended the relevant briefings on the subject earlier. The noble Lord and the House may not know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has obtained agreement that the Queen's head will remain on the coinage if we join the euro, and the position as regards bank notes is under negotiation. The Government are conscious of precisely the points which the noble Lord raised. This is a matter we are attempting to take forward.
On the point about whether or not it is irresponsible to initiate any form of preparation, such as is described in the Statement and in the background documentation, I should emphasis again that the Government feel it is right to announce the preparations and the outline plan for consultation to enable the country to make the real choice that it may be asked to make when the time for a referendum comes. To do so without the appropriate preparation would simply be an invalid and unrealistic choice requiring, were there for example, to be a yes vote, much further delay than the Government feel would be responsible to undertake on behalf of the country if that yes vote was forthcoming. The noble Lord will be aware that the timing will depend precisely
986
on the understandings about the convergence of the economic conditions, clearly laid out since the Statement of my right honourable friend the Chancellor in October 1997.
As for the timing of the referendum Bill and the referendum itself, I suggest to both noble Lords who invited me to be more precise, that they are actually asking for some kind of projection about the date of the next general election. As the Statement clearly states, unless there are some unforeseen economic changes, that position will not be reached until the next Parliament. It is clearly not possible to attach dates to the particular critical path described; they are entirely dependent on the start date of the decision by the Government that it is in the economic interests of the UK to join the EMU.
Perhaps the House does not entirely share my enthusiasm for this, but we now know more about passing referendum Bills than we did at the time of the general election when the Government came to power. On the basis of experience, it is not unrealistic—as the Statement says—to say that we could proceed from a decision based on the economic criteria to a referendum in about four months.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about the costs. It is true, as the Statement says, that there will be some expenditure of some tens of millions of pounds—not, as he suggested, on a propaganda campaign, but on practical matters such as upgrading the relative computer systems in the DSS, Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue offices where it is particularly relevant to practical preparation for possible entry into the euro. As I understand it, that upgrading of computers will not take place simply in order to achieve the practical preparations. Where the computers and other systems are being upgraded in any undertaking of business projections, they will be adapted in such a way that they could be used for the euro. That seems to me a practical and very sensible provision. It is not in any way outside the normal competence of what one would describe as appropriate business and economic strategy.
As to the final point the noble Lord raised, it is not the Government's intention to shadow the euro. We have never suggested that, and it is not our policy. I will of course write to the noble Lord if I have left out any of the important points which he made. I think that I have covered the major ones.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I would call this national changeover plan a "changeover of national opinion plan." That is surely what it is all about. The technical matter of preparing—as any sensible government would—for the introduction of a new currency would not justify anything like the kind of Statement we have heard. Frankly, is not the real reason that the Government are now launching their pre-referendum campaign with the aid of substantial sums of public money? Is not another related reason the fact that the heads of government of the European Council are meeting in Germany at the end of this week and the Government are desperately anxious to disarm

987
the expected German attack on the British failure to harmonise our taxes and to change our contribution to the European Community?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I suspect that my noble friend and I will always have a disagreement in principle; I hope that we both accept that we take our positions from honourable backgrounds. I am sure my noble friend will appreciate that a great deal of the Statement and a great deal of the background document, which, with his usual assiduousness, he has probably already read, relate to the technical, practical and—as I said in answer to the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Rodgers—what I would call effective and sensible business strategy rather than any kind of propaganda. As the Statement makes clear, it is intended to try and move towards a situation where the real choice is legitimately on the table. That involves some practical preparation, but not necessarily the influencing of opinion; rather the influencing of business strategy.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that the position taken by these Benches is motivated by the economic interests of this country and not by ideological, crazy passion? As shown in conference last week, both the TUC and companies such as Vauxhall think it important for direct investment reasons that this country joins the euro. Is the Minister also aware that 80 per cent. of people in this country believe that we will eventually join the euro? They can perceive the economic advantages of lower interest rates, prices and so on. Does this not suggest a greater need for public information at this stage? People are looking for the kind of leadership, through information, that the Government could provide. As my noble friend Lord Rodgers said, while this is a welcome step, it does not go far enough in providing the kind of leadership that opinion polls show people are crying out for.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. Once again, if I may say so with respect, she slightly misses the point of the Statement which is to address the practical preparations for the business case which could be made for consideration, at another stage, of economic convergence.
I take her point about the role that business has played so far. It is important that the Governor of the Bank of England, the heads of the Financial Services Authority and the British Bankers Association, the presidents of the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce, and the general secretary of the TUC have been involved in producing this document. They will be involved in the very important and more detailed work which will need to be undertaken in order to answer some of the questions about timing and the analysis of convergence issues which have rightly been raised.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House accept that this statement of intention to join a successful single
988
currency, however tentatively presented, will be welcomed by very many men and women who care deeply about the future well-being and prosperity of this country? To that end, can she assure the House that that intention will henceforward be fulfilled—not by accident or osmosis but by making it an important objective of government policy?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, says about the background principles of this policy. I hope it was clear from the Statement that the Government are—as was originally proposed by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Statement of October 1997—advancing the principle that if the euro is successful, and if the economic conditions of the euro are suitable for this country and promote better jobs, better industrial progress and so on for Great Britain, that is the policy the Government will pursue. We do not intend to pursue it to the economic disadvantage of the country, but we certainly intend to pursue it within the criteria I have described.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has made considerable play about the number of SMEs which maintain euro accounts, I wonder whether she can tell the House how many SMEs trade in US dollars and maintain US dollar accounts? Can she also tell the House whether she has noticed that there is an almost unanimous view being expressed by officials in Brussels, and by elected government Ministers in euroland, that EMU is only the first step towards a united states of Europe? If the Government do not agree with that proposition, how, once they have got us in, will they prevent our being dragged into such a confederation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, on the point about the number of SMEs trading in dollars, I am advised by my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury—who has taken a very important lead in this project on behalf of the Government and whom we thank very much for his activities in liaising between the Government and the business community—that the number of SMEs dealing in dollar trading accounts is probably much less than the number of SMEs now doing business with Europe. It is important to recognise that 45 per cent. of SMEs describe themselves as having important trading relations with Europe. That is 700,000 small businesses which, on any basis, should not be ignored.
On the point about "dragging", as the noble Viscount said slightly pejoratively, this country along in the general European direction, we will of course remain members of the European Union whatever happens as regards our joining or otherwise the single currency. It is the European Union which may pursue the political agenda; we will, as always, protect British interests in that forum.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the noble Baroness please go to the lap of the noble Lord her

989
father and ask him to remind her of the horrors of the 1967 devaluation? Will she even ask for the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who also went through the horrors of coming out of fixed exchange rates? Will she furthermore pray to the ghosts of Sir Stafford Cripps and Philip Snowden. both of whose political careers were very nearly destroyed by coming out of fixed exchange rates? Can we not learn that fixed exchange rates have done this country no good whatever and that we should therefore keep out of them and plough our own furrow in a way we are quite capable of doing? To say that we are not is to underestimate our own abilities.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am, as always, grateful to the noble Earl for his trenchant comments and for his trenchant advice. Although he invites me to go and sit on the lap of my father, I would say that he is being, as usual, extraordinarily flattering because, as an extremely grown-up person in 1967, I have clear memories of the Labour Government's problems in that period. As I said to my noble friend Lord Shore, I think we would have a disagreement in principle about the relevant economic and political decisions that we need to make. Those are ones which, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, are issues of national policy and national strategy which we should have an opportunity to debate. I do not think that they are necessarily relevant to the much more technical discussion about preparation which we are discussing this afternoon.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is very necessary indeed to maintain the expectation of Britain eventually going into the euro? That in itself will help with convergence. The financial markets and potential investors will behave towards this country in the light of the expectation of our going in and the expectation of our going in will produce positive results in the markets. Does she further agree that it is important to get an absolute undertaking from Brussels that we will not be required to enter into ERM2? In Brussels it is still insisted that we shall have to. If we do not wish to do so, and if that is to become a block to our going into the euro, it is important that we should have the matter settled once and for all.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend makes some interesting comments about what one might call the virtuous circle of expectation and real economic development. I have heard it suggested—this is perhaps relevant to the comment of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in his intervention—that the only prospect of there being tremendous jitters in the currency markets on the basis of the programme we have outlined is if there were to be, somewhat extraordinarily in the present circumstances, the prospect of a Conservative government being elected at a general election, which is rather a change from what happened in the 1960s and the 1970s. Those who experienced that will be very clear about it.
990
On the point about ERM, I can say to my noble friend that there is no intention of doing that. As far as I am aware, no member state has raised that question in Brussels recently.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I know that many senior business people and many distinguished political leaders whose judgment I respect believe that our membership of the euro in due course, if not immediately, is inevitable. But there is a possibility that the convergence schedule will not go as planned. Indeed, if one looks at Europe at the moment, although it is early days, one could say that divergence is more the keynote, with the German economy actually shrinking and wide divergences in economic performance growing even within euroland, let alone between ourselves and euroland. In that situation it is a practical possibility, for which we need to prepare, that we might find ourselves outside euroland, which will continue, and operating a local currency, sterling, not just for a few years but for a considerable length of time. Perhaps I may repeat the question of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. Is it not a matter of preparing for the practical arrangements that might arise if we found ourselves in that position? Would it be too much to ask that, in the name of balance in this matter, which I know the Government are very anxious to maintain, a working party and a White Paper should be produced to define the ways in which we can benefit and prosper in that situation, which is possible?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that is precisely what the plan does. It accepts the possibility that the strict criteria of economic convergence have to be achieved in order for the Government to accept the case for joining EMU. The Government believe that their macro-economic policy and the new financial and economic structures that they have put into place in the past 18 to 19 months are precisely those which enable the British economy to grow. I should have thought that our capacity and indeed our expectation to avoid recession precisely encourages the convergence criteria to be more likely achieved than not. Perhaps that was what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was referring to. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, it really is not possible, except in the most theoretical terms, to estimate what the possible costs to industry might be of staying out of EMU. Therefore, that is not a realistic strategy to plan for in the way that we are hoping to do with the announcement of the outline plan today. But we do believe that there is a real choice. It is in order to make that real choice have political and economic validity that we are proposing this plan.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I welcome this Statement and look forward to studying the plan. I should like to pay tribute to the work of the Treasury euro unit over the past couple of years in combining and co-ordinating all the detailed technical work of the various interests involved in preparing for the euro. I think that the House should also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Bank of England for the work it has done over a much longer period in co-ordinaling the interests of the

991
financial market and the City of London in general in preparing for the euro and being actively involved in the conversion to the euro at the beginning of this year, enabling the City of London and our financial institutions to be not only up to speed but ahead of the game in many cases and to prosper, albeit that we remain outside euroland.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, for that authoritative view on this sector. Naturally, the Government are concerned to protect the financial sector and the strength of the City of London within or without the euro position. I join him in paying tribute to the work of the Bank of England. As I said in the Statement, it has been advantageous to the preparation by the various teams involved that the BBA and the Bank of England specifically have taken such an active role and have played such a constructive part in drawing up these plans.
Lord Garel-Jones: My Lords, I very much welcome the Statement so far as it goes. Can we now hope that the Government will be prepared not to hide behind the undoubtedly important technical work that is being undertaken but to give a real lead from the Prime Minister downwards in leading Britain towards the economic convergence that we need? Does the noble Baroness agree that there is another side to this convergence, which is the convergence that has to take place from Europe? I refer to the restructuring of European industry and the restructuring of social and labour costs inside Europe. To present a referendum to the British people where we are inviting them to go back to the 1970s is not a proposition they will find very exciting.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: No, my Lords, I recognise that. That is precisely why the passage in the Statement, which was very clear and perhaps more detailed than some noble Lords appreciated—I concede that that added to its length—described the alternative social model which the Government very much hope to persuade the rest of Europe to follow and which we feel will be important to the success of our society as well as our economy.
On the point about the Prime Minister giving a lead, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, that a lead has been given in a responsible way since the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October 1997 which, I emphasise again, very much gave the go ahead to joining EMU but with the very important and responsible criteria laid down beside it. What the Prime Minister said this afternoon underlines that point. I am sure that at the moment, if it comes, when convergence is identified within the scope of the criteria that have been clearly demonstrated, the Prime Minister will, as always, give a very important political lead.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that many people will find this Statement
992
extraordinarily timid? The Government say that business will take some satisfaction from the fact that there is certainty—namely, that no decision will be taken until the next general election. I suppose one should be grateful that there is not uncertainty—but, my word, if that is certainty from the Government it leaves a lot to be desired.
The Statement refers selectively to the economic convergence criteria. Does the noble Baroness accept that on at least two of those criteria—namely, of creating better conditions for firms making long-term decisions to invest in Britain and the City's competitive position—it is already abundantly clear that Britain's economic interests lie with joining the euro? Finally, on a practical point, the noble Baroness talks about a four-month period between taking a decision in principle to hold a referendum and the referendum taking place. Will the Government accept that, were that to be possible within the first months of a new Parliament, the sensible way to prepare for it would be to introduce and pass a paving Bill in this Parliament so that the Government could get on with matters after the next election?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, this 20 minutes of exchanges has been fascinating. We have seen precisely identified the divisions between—I think the noble Baroness was slightly concerned when I said ideological grounds; I was simply quoting from the Statement—the "no, never" and the "yes now, under any circumstances" positions of noble Lords.
I emphasise again that the Government see what they call the cautious but nonetheless responsible and determined path which is outlined in the Statement and the background document as the most useful one to follow. I cannot see any advantage, whether political or economic—and certainly it would not be in the interests of the British people—in saying that we shall go hell for leather for EMU whatever the costs to industry and whatever the background in terms of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, on the City of London and whatever the grounds in regard to the social impact and social policies mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones. This is a responsible policy of practical preparation. It is based on a decision in principle which has been made clear by my right honourable friend this afternoon. Noble Lords should accept it on that basis.

House of Lords Reform
Debate resumed.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I hope that with a modest mental leap we can return to the subject that we were discussing before we were so rudely interrupted.
We shall have an opportunity when the House of Lords Bill comes to your Lordships' House to consider its proposals in detail, not only at Second Reading but, if it survives that, at the Committee stage. In due course we shall have the long-term recommendations of the

993
Royal Commission. I therefore want to concentrate entirely on the White Paper which is the subject of the Government's Motion and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. (I need hardly say that I speak only for myself—as a Cross-Bench Peer I can speak for no one else.) Several noble Lords have criticised the quality and intellectual validity of the White Paper; but at least it has provided the opportunity for this valuable debate. And, for the connoisseur, it provides one or two interesting insights into the Government's ideological leanings.
I turn first to the claim in the White Paper, summarised on page 5, that the Government's proposals for constitutional change rest on the assent of the people. The Government state that,
"People across the country have made clear what they want",
and they go on to speak of the referendums and subsequent developments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and of the referendum on the governance of London. However, when they come to the reform of the House of Lords, there is no such claim. Indeed, there could not be because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of a popular demand for such reform. As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said yesterday, the indications are that probably no more than 2 per cent. of the people of this country are actively in favour of the proposals which the Government are now putting forward. Indeed, when it comes to justifying their approach, the wishes and will of the people play no part, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, observed yesterday.
Incidentally, those of us who listened carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway— which means, I hope most of us—may have noted that one important point in his speech was not clearly reflected in Hansard at col. 895. There seems to be a very important "not" missing from the text. I have discussed the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and am assured that what he was saying was that a special enabling Bill which was not hybrid could be introduced, thus giving effect to the substance. I hope that that puts the record straight.
So, instead of the will of the people, the Government put forward (Chapter 5, page 27) under the interesting heading, 'Why Reform is Necessary", a quotation from Thomas Paine, who said, some 200 years ago,
"The idea of hereditary legislators is as inconsistent as that of hereditary judges, as hereditary juries; and as absurd as an hereditary mathematician, or an hereditary wise man; as absurd as an hereditary Poet Laureate."
This is, as political historians will be aware, a typical example of Paine's familiar dialectical method of reducing to absurdity views which differ from his own. But, more interestingly, the quotation is taken from The Rights of Man; and anyone who has had the excruciating experience of reading that monumental work will know that it is an unashamed polemical tract which advocates, among other things, the establishment of a republican constitution in this country. I hope that there is no hidden significance in this. Thomas Paine seems to me to be a most unfortunate choice as a role model for new Labour and, if those who drafted the White Paper were looking for a catchy quotation, I might have suggested to them what Paine's
994
contemporary, Edmund Burke, wrote in his Reflections on the Revolution in France some years before Paine wrote The Rights of Man:
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors."
But perhaps that would not have fitted comfortably into the general ideology of the White Paper. The first point I make, therefore, is that there is, so far, no identifiable public desire for the kind of reform which the Government are now putting forward.
I now come to the claim that the Government are entitled to go ahead unhindered with their proposals because they were contained in their election manifesto. We all know about the Salisbury convention and, it is, indeed, referred to at some length in the White Paper on Page 17 of Chapter 3. I respectfully point out—and especially respectfully in the presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne—that that convention is based upon nothing more constitutionally binding than an opinion advanced by Lord Salisbury in a debate in your Lordships' House in 1945. I venture with some temerity to advance the proposition that in a matter of this constitutional importance (by the Government's own admission one of the most radical constitutional changes to be made for many years) this House is not obliged to bow too obsequiously before the Salisbury convention. The very idea that by inserting a proposal for radical constitutional change in their election manifesto a subsequent government can avoid scrutiny and even outright opposition in the upper Chamber is leading us along a very dangerous path.
As I have said before in your Lordships' House—and it is a statement of the obvious—the present Government were not elected with a large majority because they promised to abolish the hereditary peerage. Nor, I suggest, would the majority have been any smaller had that undertaking not been in the manifesto. I believe, therefore, that this House may have a perfect right, even a duty, to ask the Government to think again about the proposal.
My third and final observation concerns the degree of haste with which the proposals are being pushed forward. The Royal Commission set up under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has been asked to report by the end of this year so that the Government can respond to its recommendations in advance of the next general election. The Royal Commission will not even have its first meeting until 1st March.
Surely, before the Royal Commission can make recommendations about the composition of the upper House, it will have to consider in great detail the functions and powers of a future second Chamber. It seems to me almost incredible, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, indicated earlier, that we should expect a constitutional change of this depth and magnitude to be examined, debated and implemented within that time frame. Would it not be wise to provide more time for reflection and public debate, to assess the impact of the Government's other constitutional changes, all of which have an internal dynamic of their own but which are intimately linked with the future of Parliament? Would it not be logical to await the

995
recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham's commission before embarking on this piecemeal slice of reform which seems to pre-empt some of the Royal Commission's options? As the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said in his remarkable speech yesterday, there seems to be no coherent intellectual framework to the Government's constitutional policies.
I have now been fortunate enough to spend 35 years in your Lordships' House. During that fascinating time I have never got any impression that this House does not function effectively. In my experience, hereditary Peers have made and continue to make an important contribution to its success. I have had occasion to say before in your Lordships' House that no one, least of all I, would deny the need for change; but change must be evolutionary, orderly and regulated. I conclude by asking Her Majesty's Government, even at this late stage—but without much hope of success—to think again about the ill thought out and precipitous legislation foreshadowed by this White Paper.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, expressed some fundamental doubts about government policy towards your Lordships' House which the Government Chief Whip may wish to answer when he winds up later this evening. For myself, I simply make the point that this debate enables us to have a wide-ranging discussion of the Government's plans for reform of your Lordships' House. But I have to say that for me the White Paper does little to allay the suspicion that although Ministers are determined to remove hereditary Peers from the House as a result of the stage one reform, what stage two will consist of no one, including Ministers, yet knows.
That is clearly demonstrated by reading Chapter 7, entitled rather grandiloquently, "Modernising the Lords". That, however, rather surprisingly embarks on rehearsing what are referred to in the text as "guiding principles", but which are nothing more than well worn and accepted conventions and understandings about the supremacy of the House of Commons.
Certainly the White Paper then discusses some options and suggestions for the future. I join my noble friend Lord Cranborne in having high hopes for the fruitful work of the Royal Commission, but until it reports it will be necessary to achieve a wide area of agreement at the end of the day, including the agreement of Members of another place. But we shall have to wait until that report arrives.
Although one might not think so from the statistics and pie charts in the White Paper relating to the composition of your Lordships' House, a simple fact which is well understood in this House is that without Cross-Bench support the government of the day will usually be in jeopardy in this House. That is not only because of the number of Cross-Bench votes which can be cast on any particular issue but also because, more often than not, movement against the Government on the Cross-Benches, whoever the government may be, is
996
often the signal that Peers, including the Government's own supporters, have doubts which they are about to register on a specific issue.
This House—thank goodness—is still capable of demonstrating independence of mind and spirit. So one of the few welcomes that I can give to the White Paper is its recognition of the value of the Cross-Benches, which are important in that respect.
There are three aspects of the White Paper which I wish to mention—not, I hope, in order to take minor and fiddling points, but to echo the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, which I so much enjoyed, and perhaps to emphasise the fact that we are setting off on a complex path.
First, as I read Chapter 8 which deals with the
"Advantages and disadvantages of the elected options",
I could not help wondering just how expensive the second Chamber will be. Then, rather like meeting an old friend in the street, I came across a paragraph which could only have been written by the familiar hand of the Treasury which states:
"Higher costs. The costs of both the elections themselves and the need to provide proper salaries and research facilities for elected members would considerably increase the costs of the second chamber".
I found it hardly surprising that with this warning ringing in their ears, the authors of the White Paper recommend some, but not too much, elected membership. In other words, a "Mixed House", as the White Paper calls it, for the future.
That sounds a safe compromise, but if the elected element were to be accorded separate and privileged treatment of that kind, then I believe that a mixed House would start to throw up some real problems even before it had ever met.
Secondly, I wish to ask what the Government envisage is the right role for a reformed second Chamber in relation to the devolved institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The White Paper suggests that a reformed House could have some "overt" role as the representative of the regions and the regional bodies. Along with other noble Lords, I find this an interesting possibility. But it raises two issues. If some Members were to attend the second Chamber in a representative role, mandated, as it were, from their devolved assemblies, it could mark a sharp departure for a House where noble Lords speak entirely on their own behalf and where presumably that would remain the case for nominated life Peers. It is an important matter when we are talking about a revising Chamber which is supposed to be as independent in mind and spirit as it is possible to be. Also, I regret to say that I can see little real progress being made in that area while the Government remain unwilling to address the West Lothian question. If nothing is done, it will threaten to sour relations at least between England and Scotland for some years to come.
Finally, I join many other noble Lords in believing that the White Paper has made a grave error in rather lamely recommending a reduction in the powers of the House. It is as though the authors of the White Paper had temporarily forgotten that they are supposed to be

997
ushering in an exciting reform for a modernised second Chamber. Or is there possibly a touch of duplicity here? It is easy to see that one method of balancing the increase in the so-called legitimacy of the House by the stage one reform could then be balanced by reducing the powers of the House at stage 2. That very neat equation might be appealing to Members of another place.
Whatever the reasons for this particular recommendation, it runs entirely counter to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde which I believe is rightly protective of the independence of Parliament and of the scrutinising function of the House of Lords. I also wonder what kind of message the recommendation to reduce the powers of the second Chamber would send to busy people who might be deciding whether or not to stand for some kind of election to the second House of Parliament.
If enacted, the Cranborne-Weatherill proposal (to use that shorthand) will go some way towards hereditary Peers being able to contribute to the work of a transitional House and to agreement on stage two reform. I welcome that and take great comfort from it. But my abiding reservation, which I share with countless other noble Lords, is that it is a serious matter for the Government to be determined to proceed without having a thoroughly considered plan for House of Lords reform. There is no such plan. We must be realistic and face the fact that in the end much will depend upon both the wisdom and good common sense of the Royal Commission and what agreement can be reached with Members of another place.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Belstead, whom I was proud to follow as Leader of this place some years ago. I greatly admired the skill, tact and charm that he brought to the discharge of his duties. I was unable to emulate those qualities. I shall not follow his speech today, not because I disagree with what he said but because I believe that there are some very important points to draw to the attention of the Royal Commission that so far have not been made. We are debating the White Paper and not the House of Lords Bill, but some words spoken during the recent Second Reading debate on that Bill by the redoubtable parliamentarian, Mr. Benn, appear to me to be very relevant. Mr. Benn did not argue, as he might have done, that temporary Bills like the Parliament Act 1911 have a habit of becoming permanent because no one can agree on what should be its replacement, but that permanency would be the lot of the House of Lords Bill because it will suit everyone at the top.
I am not sure that Mr. Benn got it quite right. I am more inclined to the view, shaped by the contents of the White Paper and the composition of the Royal Commission, that Mr. Blair is confident that everyone at the top will be well and truly suited when the Royal Commission reports because he believes that the Royal Commission will gratify the Government's clearly expressed wish that the House should not be wholly elected. or even have a very substantial elected element,
998
and that the powers of the House should even be reduced. In short, Mr. Blair believes that he will win both ways. He will get a report that recommends a House that will not be a nuisance—pa report that is entirely in tune with his own idea that Parliament is a good thing provided it does not get in the way of the project—and he will then be able to take credit for its speedy implementation.
The kind of anodyne report that the Government expect the Royal Commission to produce may not be as easy to translate into legislation as the Government believe. The Second Reading debate in another place showed that there is not the beginnings of a consensus in the Labour Party as to what form stage two should take. Of course the lesson of 1968 is not that hereditary Peers wrecked Labour's plans for reform but that politicians in the other place, on the right and the left, were not prepared to support the Parliament Bill.
The position is that the present House of Lords Bill, when it becomes an Act, may never be replaced, and for that reason we may be left with a wholly nominated House. If, on the other hand, the Government get through a second stage Bill it is very likely to be a measure that gives us anyhow a wholly or largely nominated House. We had better face up to it. It is a dismal prospect, for the reason that those noble Lords who embark on constitutional change must look not just at the mundane, workaday duties of the House but at the powers that it can use if necessary in wholly abnormal circumstances, for example in times of national crisis. We should look at those powers of the Lords that are most essential to the preservation of our freedom. The most obvious one is the power preserved by the 1911 Act to deny to a government a Bill to extend the life of a Parliament. We should ask ourselves what kind of House can be most trusted to exercise that power and stand in the way of dictatorial government. Certainly, it is not a nominated House that the government of the day can pack with their own supporters in order to secure a majority.
No doubt the Government will continue to stress that there will be safeguards to prevent the nominated provisional House, and by implication any nominated, or largely nominated, second stage House, becoming a mere rubber stamp of government. I am sorry to say that that is simply not the case. Neither in the House of Lords Bill nor in the White Paper is there any assurance that there will be put in place arrangements to prevent a Prime Minister being able to advise the Queen to create enough Peers to ensure the passage of any legislation. There is nothing in the Bill, and no legislation promised in the White Paper, to bar a Prime Minister from flooding the House with his own nominees. Pious declarations that no one political party should seek a majority in the Lords do not alter the constitutional and legal position. The position is that it will remain open to the Prime Minister, and for that matter any future Prime Minister, to secure for himself an absolute majority in this place and to render the House completely ineffective as a check on the Executive.
I identify the real weaknesses in the constitutional arrangements that have existed for a long time but have not mattered very greatly because of the strong

999
independent element in the House of Lords which the hereditary Peers have constituted. But now that sweeping change is to take place the Royal Commission would surely be failing in its duty if it did not take this opportunity to address these weaknesses. I assert that the present House of Lords Bill and any successor that allows for nominated Peers should contain provisions that prevent any flooding of the House with supporters of the Government. One way would be to put a statutory limit on the number of Peers who could be created in any year and charge a statutory appointments committee with the task of recommending appointments from the various parties in numbers which ensured that, as nearly as possible, the government of the day had a small majority over the other parties but not in the House as a whole.
But I believe we should go further than that. The Royal Commission simply must not miss this opportunity to address real weaknesses that have existed for a long time. It must recognise that, in the absence of a written constitution that is amendable only by special procedures, there are few safeguards in this country against a government, supported by a hefty but perhaps very temporary majority in the House of Commons, destroying our most precious institutions, including the monarchy itself, that have grown up over the centuries. Most people recognise that these institutions are not the playthings of politicians to be tampered with at the whim of a temporary majority in the House of Commons, but are held in trust by us for our children and our children's children. It is difficult to see how vandalism of this sort can be checked and averted other than by a second Chamber so constituted that it is genuinely independent of the government of the day.
But I am not sure that even this is enough. I have become more and more convinced that there should also be a special procedure for Bills of constitutional significance, and in particular Bills touching on the powers of the monarch. In my view, legislation should provide that a Bill, certified by the Speaker as coming within this category, should, after rejection by the second Chamber, only become law if endorsed by the electorate in a referendum. Alternatively, in the case of constitutional Bills alone, the delaying power of the second Chamber should be restored to the 1911 Act position, and it should be provided that there could be no further changes in the second Chamber's powers without such Chamber's consent.
The Royal Commission has an awesome task. At a time when the House of Commons has proved itself almost entirely ineffective as a check on the executive; at a time when, according to Mr. Tam Dalyell, the House of Commons, which the Prime Minister rarely troubles to attend, is "atrophying"; and when, according to Mr. Benn,
"democracy is being squeezed out of the system";
at this time of all times the Government have, with amazing effrontery, told the Royal Commission that they want fewer powers for the second Chamber and would not countenance an elected House or even a House with a substantial elected element.
1000
I beg the Royal Commission to surprise us all by ignoring this Government's instructions, and recognising that this is an opportunity which will not recur for years to provide safeguards in our constitution against an elective dictatorship; an opportunity to be master builders of a very much more comprehensive constitutional settlement than that envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I welcome the White Paper, but I do not believe that it goes far enough. As some noble Lords will know, I wrote a pamphlet about reform of the House of Lords for the Fabian Society two years ago. In it I laid out the logic of that reform, which is quite clear. The problem with the British constitution is not that there are hereditary Peers. As my noble friend Lord Richard and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said, it is a question of the power of the Executive. Because we have an unwritten constitution the provisions are not laid out. The power of the Executive has become what it is because of the nature of the House of Commons.
Therefore, an important part of the reform of the second Chamber is to have a chamber which will sometimes challenge the House of Commons. I see no problem with that. The House of Commons is pre-eminent and will remain so. We also know that any Prime Minister with a majority can do what he or she likes. It is very interesting that in British politics it is only when parties are in opposition that the danger of the power of the Executive is discovered. As the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said, it is only when the party is in power that it forgets that homely truth. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is not here. That truth has been known since Tom Paine first pointed it out. I prefer him to Edmund Burke because at least Tom Paine did not praise Marie Antoinette and become a fan of Louis XVI, as Burke did.
Therefore, we need a second Chamber with legitimacy, as many noble Lords have said. That requires not just the removal of hereditary Peers but of most life Peers. If legitimacy is lacking in this Chamber because the hereditary Peers are unelected, so are we. At the second stage of any reform of the House—if we ever get to that stage—we should have only the Cross-Bench life Peers with, perhaps, the Bishops for the religiously-minded, which I am not. About 145 Members would form the rump of the House of Lords, if I may so call it. Then, according to my calculations, working on the two-thirds principle we should have 290 elected Members. That would represent a Chamber with two-thirds of its membership elected and one-third nominated.
One of the defects of the White Paper is that it does not contain a comprehensive survey of second chambers across the world. If other western-style constitutions had been considered, especially that of India, it would have been realised that there are other ways of electing a second chamber, which would have both an appointed and an elected element. It does not matter if an element is indirectly elected, but direct election would be easier and probably cheaper.

1001
In reform at the second stage we should aim for a House with between 345 and 350 Members, which I believe is about the normal size of the active House at present. At the moment the active part of this House contains no more than 350 to 400 people. Therefore, the business that the House does today can easily be done by 350 people who will have to be paid. I am sorry to say that people are not going to do the kind of work that this House does if they are stripped of dignity and it is made just an ordinary second Chamber. Therefore, the Members of the House will be paid. It would be a properly serviced and, I am sure, an efficient House.
I was intrigued by the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, yesterday. He is one of the few people who has spoken about the functions of the House, apart from my noble friend Lord Richard. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, proposed that the reformed House should become a Committee, as it were, of the House of Commons so that any Bill introduced in the other place, and after Second Reading, would come straight here. Such a Bill would go through a Second Reading and Committee stage in this House. Either before or after Report stage the Bill will return to the other place. That would save a great deal of time and the House would he doing what it does best; namely, scrutinising a Bill, giving a great deal of expert advice, and investing much time in careful examination of it for which the other place does not have the time.
We could have a House with 350 Members. We could have a Committee, Select Committees and other specialist committees. A House with 350 Members would be appropriate. I look forward to the Royal Commission recommending that and I look forward to free afternoons and evenings for myself.
The Cranborne-Weatherill compromise fills me with foreboding. I am worried that we shall stop there. I am genuinely worried that it represents the perfect English compromise which never solves a problem. However, it makes it very difficult for anyone to insist that there is still a problem to be solved. If one believes that the real reason for wishing to reform this House is because of its Conservative majority, as do some Members of another place, that objection is removed by the compromise. If that occurs, what Government would be eager to reform the House of Lords two or three years later? It would be too close to the next election and after that who would care? I am very fearful of the compromise. I shall have to think very carefully whether I vote for it. I might vote against it.
Finally, wish to say a few words about faith. Many people have said that we could use the opportunity of reforming the House of Lords to include many members who are "professional" representatives of different faiths. I am against that. The bishops are here and good luck to them, but it is a mistake to believe that all other religions consist of a priesthood or Church like the Christian Church. For example, the Hindus in this country do not have a Church and a defined priesthood. No one can be called a representative Hindu priest. It would be a nightmare. Of course, there are many sects in Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism and Buddhism—heaven knows! Of course, there will have to be atheist representatives and I offer myself for that. I believe that
1002
if we want the faiths to be represented we should take the same stance as the Catholic Church; that faiths should be represented by the lay people who believe in them and not by the "professionals".
6.11 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for the amusement he gave us, most of it on purpose. I noted that he is the only person on the other side of the House who has had the courage, or perhaps the intellectual discipline, to work out and propose a reform for the House. It is clear that the Government have not made up their mind and I do not believe that they back his idea. However, when he dealt with the Cranborne-Weatherill, Prime Minister-Lord Chancellor, agreement he showed a delightful ambivalence. I hope that in debates on the forthcoming Bill I shall be one of those who can persuade him that it is a good idea.
However, today's debate is about the White Paper and not about that Bill. I find part of the White Paper generally acceptable in describing the history and the present state of the House of Lords and many of the available options for changes. I say "generally" because I have noted a number of errors and ambiguities. The reason that I so strongly support the amendment, moved so well on his birthday by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, is because the White Paper is unclear about the future powers of the House, the importance of it, and of its individual Members being independent in mind, spirit and voice.
The White Paper sets out the options for the future. The noble Lord, Lord Richard. made a splendid speech following the equally, if not more, splendid speech of my noble friend Lord Cranborne. I noted that the noble Lord had not interpreted the White Paper in the sense that I had. I had believed that the White Paper was advising in favour of the hybrid House; two-thirds/one-third. He seemed to believe that it was advising in favour of a wholly nominated House. I rather wish that it were because I believe that there are substantial dangers in introducing into this House an elected element. If there are not dangers there are great differences. As in all constitutional matters I believe in evolution rather than revolution and building on what we have. I believe that we should be careful before making a fundamental change in the way that this House looks at things.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The point that I was making, obviously not very successfully, was that there is precious little difference between a House which has a wholly nominated element and a House which has an indirectly elected element. In other words, the difference between nomination and indirect election seems to me to be paper thin and, frankly, not worth the paper it is written on.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point, but I shall not come back on it.
When one moves up to this Chamber from down the corridor, as I did 37 years ago in 1962, one remembers that in this House each of us is solely responsible for and

1003
to himself. Down the corridor, each honourable Member is responsible to those who elected him. They can sack him. Nobody can sack us, other than the Lord God. However, I hope that my noble friend Lord Wakeham will consider the possibility of life Peers being able to resign for whatever reason. There is that fundamental difference; and whether hybrid or wholly elected, do we want to have that difference? My noble friend Lord Belstead made a point about there being a mixture of salaried and non-salaried people. I question whether a mixture in this House of those wholly responsible for themselves and those responsible to outsiders is a good way of establishing a durable second Chamber.
The point has been made that the White Paper seeks to strengthen Parliament. I believe that we all agree with that aim. However, I agree with my noble Leader that it is odd that in seeking to strengthen this House and Parliament one should consider reducing its powers. I believe that this House will be strengthened when its legitimacy, in the broad sense of that word, is understood better by and is acceptable to the public and Members of the other place.
It is sometimes thought that our legitimacy is not acceptable solely because of the antiquity or peculiarity of hereditary peerages. I do not believe that that is the sole or even the dominant reason. I believe that the dominant reason for the failure to accept this House as a credible part of Parliament today is the political imbalance. That was the comment that I took from the debate in the other place. I shall not follow my noble friend Lord Waddington in disobeying what I believe to be the rules of the House by quoting the Member who said it. However, it was said in the other place that the Government and the Opposition have no plans for the reform of the House of Lords. It is generally agreed that the House of Lords has a political imbalance which must be changed. I believe that that is right. It is one of the reasons why I welcome the transitional arrangements which have been agreed. It is also one of the reasons why I believe that all parties to the agreement were typically wise and pragmatic in making the evolutionary arrangements on which we depend.
Finally, I issue a word of warning to my noble friend on the Royal Commission about innovations and alterations. I hope that he will remember what scientists do with new drugs. They look extremely carefully at the side effects. I believe that the side effects of the removal of the hereditary Peerage, and the alteration of some of our rules which has been proposed, need examination. I do not ask the commission to reject those proposals but I ask it to examine the side effects very carefully. I wish it well and I have the greatest confidence that my noble friend and the Royal Commission will produce a set of proposals which will enable a sensible and durable reform of Parliament to take place.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Aldington. We have heard some remarkable speeches in this debate. If I single out in particular those of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and my noble friends Lord Denham and Lord Cranborne, it is because they are all hereditary Peers.
1004
Indeed, they are the embodiment of the hereditary principle. Few people could have listened to those speeches and doubted that, however difficult it is to justify or rationalise, after the hereditaries have gone from this House something of value will have disappeared from our national life.
Everyone who has spoken knows much more than I about the House of Lords. But I know a little about the House of Commons. My great fear is that the Government propose to make this Chamber much more like the House of Commons. By saying that, I intend no disrespect to the House of Commons. Indeed, I tried my hardest to stay there. But this country does not need another highly political Chamber. After reform, this place will inevitably be much more political.
What is valuable here, and what strikes those of us who come from the other place, is not just the value of the Cross-Bench element but the atmosphere of quiet reflectiveness and detachment on all sides of the House.
I add my voice to those speaking against a wholly elected Chamber. I am slightly surprised at the emergence of some Tory Jacobins wanting to go down that road. If we have a wholly directly-elected second Chamber, why should it have any less legitimacy than the House of Commons? Why should it be bound by any Salisbury rules? A continuation of the Salisbury convention would make no sense. A second Chamber would be just as legitimate as the first Chamber. Every elected member would have his own mandate.
Whatever the starting rules may be, a wholly elected second Chamber would fight for, and in the end would acquire, more powers. The settlement of 1688 meant that a veto of a Bill by either House caused it to be defeated. That arrangement did not work then; it would not work now; and to go anywhere near that sort of conflict of interest would be disastrous.
The Government have decided to alter the composition of this House, conveniently leaving its powers unaltered for the moment. But when one brick is removed from a wall, the rest of the wall tends to shift. It is not possible to separate composition and powers. If we are going back to first principles—and the Government are forcing us to do precisely that—powers should come first and composition second, as my noble friend Lord Norton said yesterday. We should surely ask first what is the House of Lords is for and then we should decide the question of composition.
It is said that history sometimes repeats itself. In 1968 the Labour government put forward proposals for a stage one and a stage two reform together. Then, as now, Labour claimed to be strengthening the second Chamber but, at the same time, it proposed to lessen the time that the Lords could delay legislation approved by the House of Commons. The then government proposed to remove the right of this House to reject secondary legislation. Today—surprise, surprise—on page 40 of the White Paper, the Government float precisely the same proposals; namely, to reduce the length of time that legislation can be delayed and to remove the right to vote against secondary legislation. Perhaps these proposals, 30 years on, were written by the same civil servant sitting at the same desk.

1005
There seems to be a fundamental contradiction in the Government's attitude. On the one hand, they say that those powers are theoretically available, implying that they are never used. On the other hand, their whole case for reform is that this House uses its powers too often. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will explain that to me. 1 was not entirely convinced by the noble Baroness's attempts to do so yesterday. To tell us that the Royal Commission will consider the question of powers is not to answer the question as to why there should be any reduction whatever in the powers of this Chamber.
I do not see a ease for reducing the powers of this House. The Government say that they are making this House more legitimate. If it is more legitimate, there is surely a stronger case for increasing its powers rather than reducing them. I could have mentioned also the proposal being considered in the House of Commons by the Modernisation Committee that a Bill not completed in one Session should be carried over to the next Session. If that proposal were implemented, that would drive a coach and horses through the powers of this House to delay legislation.
This House is seen as a revising Chamber, a modest and valuable role. But another important function surely is that this House should also act as a constitutional long stop and as an ultimate guardian of people's liberties. That is why, in many countries, there are second chambers—to be that ultimate safeguard. That, perhaps, is why a newly reformed, more legitimate House of Lords could have new reserve powers and be able to challenge the House of Commons.
Why should the House of Lords, if it is made more legitimate, not have the right to defeat legislation passed by the House of Commons if two-thirds of the Members of the House of Lords so decided? On constitutional Bills, why should the House of Lords, if it is more legitimate, not have the right to insist, again with a qualified majority, that constitutional Bills be considered by a referendum? Why should the House of Lords, if it is more legitimate, not have similar powers in relation to Money Bills and budgets, as the Bundesrat has in Germany? I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Howe that our finance Bills and our tax legislation are not so perfect that they would not be capable of further improvement.
The House of Lords should bow to the nation but it is entitled to hold in check the tendency of elected representatives to go on frolics of their own. The other day I listened to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor casting. doubt on the phrase "elective dictatorship" coined by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. But elective dictatorships can be a real danger, whether a minority government or a very popular government deciding to abuse their powers, although the latter is more difficult to define and identify.
To my mind, the Salisbury doctrine is not entirely convincing. Manifestos are extremely long documents these days, usually only read by one's political opponents. No one can say which part of any manifesto
1006
the electorate has endorsed. The third Marquess of Salisbury himself said of the last Gladstone administration:
"No person can tell … on what question the present Government was elected"
The Salisbury doctrine has become a cloak for unicameral government.
I regret the passing of the hereditary element. But the hereditary principle has been an inhibiting influence on this House. If this House is to be liberated from its inhibitions, it should not be afraid to demand more powers.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Lamont. I agree with most of the points he made so I need not refer further to his speech.
I welcome the terms of reference of the Royal Commission and, in particular, that they include the role, functions and powers of your Lordships' House. Many of us have said over the years that to consider composition before functions is to put the cart before the horse.
It would be unrealistic to expect great increases in the powers of your Lordships' House. But I suggest that three points require specific consideration. The first is constitutional Bills, which were mentioned by my noble friends Lord Cranborne and Lord Waddington. They are of special importance. I refer to the constitutional Bills which were pushed through another place in the last Session of Parliament under a guillotine. I regard that as wholly unacceptable. They were not fully discussed, and in such circumstances your Lordships need greater powers. I suggest that if the Speaker of the House of Commons certifies a Bill as being a constitutional Bill, then your Lordships' House should have the 1911 powers of delay restored to it.
My second point concerns secondary legislation. I do not believe that this will be controversial in any part of the House. The amount of secondary legislation both in number and in importance has grown enormously over the years and will not diminish in the future. But we have quite inadequate powers to scrutinise such legislation effectively. I suggest that the time has come when this House should have the right to delay or to amend secondary legislation if that is felt to be appropriate. I realise that that proposal also has implications for another place.
My third proposal concerns pre-legislation procedures. I give the Government great credit for now introducing some Bills in draft 'so that they can be discussed both inside and outside Parliament before they are set in concrete. Your Lordships' House is well suited to consider those draft Bills. There are experts on every subject under the sun in this Chamber. I realise that a suggestion has been put forward that there might be a joint committee of the two Houses to consider draft Bills. I would prefer a Select Committee of your Lordships' House to consider them and to carry out the usual procedure—to take evidence from Ministers and officials and to produce a report which could then be

1007
debated in the House. That would produce better Bills with the rough edges removed—and we badly need to improve the quality of legislation.
Those three proposals would improve the effectiveness of your Lordships' House without in any way threatening the pre-eminence of the House of Commons. A further point I should like to make briefly is that reform of this House should be considered in conjunction with reform of the other place. The two interact on each other. It is not generally realised that another place will be a very different place after devolution. At the moment it spends most of its time on domestic issues, and virtually all government Bills involve domestic issues. Indeed, domestic issues dominate the workload of Members of Parliament—a workload which increased enormously in my time in another place.
When those domestic issues are removed from Westminster and are decided elsewhere, what are Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland MPs at Westminster going to do? I hope that they will not interfere in English domestic issues. There is an unanswered question here which could build up great trouble and great resentment. Of course it concerns your Lordships' House as well. Whatever the House of Commons decides about the number of MPs there should be from the other three countries of the United Kingdom will have relevance as to how your Lordships' House decides to deal with those issues. That question should be decided before and not after the next general election.
Another unanswered question mentioned by my noble friend Lord Belstead is the so-called "West Lothian question"; I prefer to call it the "English question" because it concerns England. Unless this problem is tackled and resolved, we shall have a situation in which Members of Parliament in Westminster from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, will have a say in English domestic issues whereas English MPs will have no say in the domestic issues of other countries. That is asking for trouble; it is asking for an English backlash. That is also directly connected with your Lordships' House because the way in which the other place decides to handle English domestic issues will have great relevance for the way in which they should be handled here.
The third unanswered question concerns the financial relationships; the amount of money which should go from the Treasury to the other countries of the kingdom—the Barnett formula. We are now in a position where the Barnett formula is being discussed. It is no good the Government saying, "Tuck it under the carpet; we will deal with it later". It will be a burning issue and your Lordships' House will wish to have a say in those matters also.
As a result of the actions that the Government have taken, both Houses of Parliament are now in a state of flux. This is bad for Parliament though it may be convenient for the Government. In his foreword to the White Paper the Prime Minister referred seven times to "modernisation". But modernisation is not necessarily to improve; it can unsettle; it can weaken established institutions and it can destroy continuity. The
1008
Government, in their haste for constitutional reform, have left too many loose ends and too many unanswered questions. That uncertainty will inevitably weaken rather than strengthen the Mother of Parliaments. If the Government wish to convince us that they want to strengthen Parliament, they can start to mend their ways tonight by accepting the amendment moved so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, it is a pleasure to listen to the wise and measured words of my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree. I propose to focus on two aspects of the task set out for us by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in his excellent opening speech to this debate. That task is: what kind of strengthening do we plan of a Parliament that is weak, poorly regarded and struggling (both Houses) to adjust to a totally transformed pattern of world conditions and a society which is taking shape outside these Chambers and outside the traditional apparatus of legislation which we inherited from the previous century?
I believe it was the late Lord Iddesleigh—the former Sir Stafford Northcote—who said in conversation with Lord Salisbury 120 years ago when they were discussing the eternal problem of Lords' reform, "You must understand that the strength of the House of Lords lies in its weakness." That was a profound statement. What he meant—this was touched on by my noble friend Lord Cranborne in his excellent speech—was that the hereditary element which was then totally dominant in the House of Lords has always held back; except on one or two occasions, it has never pressed all of its powers. For the most part it has always operated with one foot on the brake. As a result of that restraint it has enabled the second Chamber to proceed in an influential and effective way over the years.
Having read the White Paper from cover to cover, I still do not believe that the Government have grasped the central point of what they are now proposing when they talk about a "legitimised" Lords, a Lords without hereditary Members. That legitimised Lords will inevitably be more assertive, more self-confident, more busybody (dare I use that word), and, in the language of the media which dominates all—I shall come to that shortly—more high profiled. Of course it will be. Even if the Government were so unwise as to go against my noble friend's amendment and try, as in section 7 of the White Paper, to reduce the legislative, formal powers of how we handle and deal with legislation, I venture to assert that the reformed, legitimised House of Lords will be a noisier and more influential place. Influence will merge with power in the modern sense.
I believe that what is not understood by everybody, and maybe was not known to our forebears such as Sir Stafford Northcote and others, is that when we talk about power we are dealing not with the old-fashioned hierarchical power that could be governed and called to account by Parliament over the executive and handled through the due process procedures of law making, but with a new distribution of power which is flowing away from the other place.

1009
We all know—it is the commonest of common knowledge—that the House of Commons is rapidly losing its power and the respect which it has. We all know that the power is moving away from the Chamber, which is empty most of the time. Yet we continue to talk as though there was this "lump" of power that somehow needs to be curbed by the appropriate traditional accountability. Where has that power gone? Some has gone to supranational levels, as we know, and to the international agencies which now govern and restrain the actions of every government and every national legislature. Some has been devolved. However, much the most part has gone, not to the identifiable institutions, but into the network of communications by which the world is now governed.
We no longer live in a world of hierarchies but in a modern world almost entirely governed by a network of new power centres which are not in the traditional, hierarchical pattern. They are, of course, the media barons who have a power of life and death; the great regulators of markets who can make and break and crush lives; the rating agencies which can wipe out a government—indeed, they can destroy a nation in a morning just by re-rating its credit—and the Internet servers, the lords of cyberspace, who can cut off the communications of nations. All those colossal powers have grown up in the past 10 years. They are all potentially—sometimes for good reasons but often for more sinister reasons—curbs on our liberties. People expect parliamentary institutions to be able to call those to account, not just the executive and its traditional law-making powers. They expect the institutions of their parliament to be able to call to account those bodies, those great powers of today. They carry power far in excess of anything imagined by our forebears or even by Members of the two Houses 10 or 15 years ago.
The Commons has not been idle in the face of all that. There has been a real attempt over the years, and during the years when I was a Member of that House, to respond to this development. I was proud to be involved in the Select Committee system. There has been an attempt to develop, certainly through that system, a way of trying to interface with powers outside Parliament and the executive, which need to be called to account.
What will a reformed House of Lords do? Of course, it will do the same thing. We are already very good and up and running at European committees; we perform that function excellently. Such committees will probably be conducted in an even more powerful and influential way. The cameras may be brought in, linking up to the network of communication and the media. I have never understood why—and I would welcome this—we do not have a Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in your Lordships' House. I speak from experience when I say that the whole system in the Commons there is hopelessly overloaded. The load has grown like a mushroom over the past 10 years. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs comes to grips with about one in 10 of the major issues which intimately affect the lives of the citizens of this country. I do not refer to vague foreign policy but to intimate developments around the world which affect the way in which we live and work.
1010
I believe that that will happen in this House; it is bound to. It probably would have happened whether or not a decision had been made to remove the hereditary Peers. As noble Lords have said, the die is cast. A legitimised House of Lords will develop additional power whether or not the executive wants it to. 'We have no idea what the executive really wants from the House of Lords.
That is my warning, if I may put it that way, to my noble friends. We face a much more active and visible House of Lords which has an opportunity of influencing and calling to account power in a way that neither House has been able to do and which, as a result, excites ridicule and contempt by the general public who see power being exercised without any control at all by any of the people they elected or appointed.
I shall quite enjoy seeing the fact dawn on an unsuspecting government that they have set in motion all sorts of things which will produce all sorts of developments that they perhaps did not intend. In short, we are about to see the law of unintended consequences have one of its most spectacular manifestations of modern times.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Howell has made a typically intellectually robust speech and one to which all noble Lords listened with great attention.
I wish to concentrate on the future powers of your Lordships' House. However, before I do so I must take issue with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and her obsession with the word "time". She seems to have difficulty in understanding the importance of time: time to think and time to reflect. After all, what we are about with this White Paper and subsequent Bills is matters which have not changed much in decades. Indeed, if one does one's analysis, one could argue that very little has changed since the Reform Act 1832.
It is surely not acceptable to this House to be told that the Government have set a demanding time schedule. Indeed, it is so demanding that the chairman of the Royal Commission indicated in his speech that he found it to be "equally demanding".
Col. 845 of yesterday's speech by the noble Baroness states,
"The issues are intellectually and politically challenging, but we know what they are, and we know what are the options for addressing them. There is frankly no need for a long period of primary research".
She went on to say,
"The Royal Commission, we feel, can move almost immediately to its analysis and recommendations".—[Official Report, 22/2/99; col. 845.]
I submit to your Lordships' House that that is a very cavalier approach to the most significant reform of our parliamentary democracy that there is ever likely to be. If we are to change the role and functions of the key elements of Parliament, our duty is to ensure that we debate them fully and get them right. I believe that too little time has been given to the Royal Commission. The issues are not already fully explored. The noble Lord,

1011
Lord Norton of Louth, emphasised that in his eloquent speech yesterday. To suggest that a Royal Commission on social policy is more challenging than one on parliamentary democracy is, frankly, unreal.
So often this Government, in their haste to be seen to be modern and to want to change things, forget about the lessons of history. However, I suspect that your Lordships do not forget about history and I hope that many of us learn from it.
In thinking about Chapter 7 and the longer term reforms, I went back to Walter Bagehot's English Constitution. He highlights the fact that it was really since the Reform Act 1832 that your Lordships' House has been a revising, or what he calls a "suspending" House; that is, it could alter or reject Bills for a period. Indeed, it almost had a theoretical veto—a veto of delay.
Bagehot went on to analyse why two Chambers were necessary. First, he saw it as a safeguard to democracy. He stated:
"So long as many old leaves linger on the November trees, you know that there has been little frost and no wind; just so while the House of Lords retains much power, you may know that there is no desperate discontent in the country, no wild agency likely to cause a great demolition".
Secondly, Bagehot's analysis suggested that if there were such a thing as a perfect elected Chamber, an upper House would scarcely be of any value at all. However, as that is totally unachievable, a revising and more legislative second Chamber is extremely useful.
Furthermore, Bagehot went on to say that the validity of that Chamber would be enhanced if it were a Chamber of an opposite sort, differently composed, and with a clear mandate to revise, regulate and delay. We should reflect seriously on the words "opposite sort". I think that that remains a key element. Without such a Chamber, the Executive Government, with a strong majority such as we see today in the Commons, could virtually do what it liked, particularly in the area of minor legislation which may well slip by the media and the public. I listened with considerable attention to the remarks made on that point by my noble friend Lord Dean.
So, the lessons are there. Our UK Parliament needs a second Chamber. When I read paragraph 26 of chapter 7, I begin to shake my head. The Government suggest a reduction of the theoretical available powers with a trade-off that they may be used more frequently. That is a temptation that should be resisted. As we know, delay has two or three effects: time for reflection; time for consultation, something in which we all believe today, and time to decide priorities. Shorten it and the pressure is off.
Secondary legislation—so much a feature of present-day government, which is rarely, if ever, mentioned in any party's manifesto—presents a real problem of a lack of democratic legitimacy. It is vital to keep and use our powers to reject. Indeed, in that area of work, we need to have a long, hard look at the way in which we handle such legislation at the moment. I do not believe that either House is doing an adequate job
1012
and, frankly, cannot do so when hundreds upon hundreds of statutory instruments are processed week after week.
A more insidious element has crept in, even in the past few weeks. A number of statutory instruments have changed the emphasis from a situation whereby a party that is affected is assumed to be innocent unless taken to task or taken to court by the Executive. That emphasis is now changing to a situation whereby a party has to prove its innocence or that it is within the powers of that statutory instrument, rather than the other way round. That is an area of considerable work for the future.
The next paragraph, paragraph 27, suggests that the Royal Commission might consider procedures as well as powers. The time has surely come when the control and chairing of debates should pass to a team of our Members, elected by us. There is no greater democratic deficit than having a member of the Government, the Lord Chancellor, as the arbiter of our proceedings. Indeed, that point is raised at paragraph 9 of chapter 3. It is my belief that whoever presides over us in this Chamber must be independent, be seen to be independent, and have his or her legitimacy sanctioned by being elected from among the membership of this House.
Finally, this debate is not really about our future membership, but chapter 8 asks the Royal Commission to think about it. I conclude by suggesting that we should not forget the dependent territories. As matters stand, some thousands of British subjects, scattered around the world, have absolutely no representation other than through the Foreign Office. I believe that your Lordships' House would be greatly enhanced if we could hear the voice of the Falklands, Gibraltar, St. Helena and the myriad of tiny islands in the Pacific. Such a move would be a real step forward in democratic legitimacy.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, it is odd that in the face of a constitutional change as sweeping as that described in the White Paper there has been so little fuss—nothing like the upheavals of 1911. We hereditary Peers look set to depart, "not with a bang but a whimper". Perhaps that is because our Parliament now has less and less power and authority. We have handed over to Brussels control of our trade, agriculture and fisheries. If the Government have their way, we shall before long give up our own currency. More and more powers are moving from Westminster to Brussels. Meanwhile, we are devolving other powers to new assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Westminster Parliament, like an old oak, is losing limb after limb. I fear that it is, in fact, slowly dying. But while it still exists, we must consider the Government's proposals for this House, which bring to mind the saying,
"Seeking to better
Oft we mar what's well".
Does the present House of Lords work well? I think it does. At a time when many of our great institutions have, sadly, lost much of the esteem that they once had, this House seems to me, ever since it was first televised, to have gained in public standing. The work of its Select

1013
Committees, largely anonymous and wholly non-political, is generally acknowledged to be useful. Even the Government acknowledge in the White Paper that our role in scrutiny is valuable. We are not too partisan and we cost relatively little.
When we do oppose and delay proposals that have come to us from the other place and are not being called for by the public—as over closed voting lists for the election of MEPs, discrimination against students from England and Wales going to Scottish universities, or the lowering of the age of consent for homosexuals—it is sometimes argued that we ought not to go on asking the Commons to think again, as they are the elected representatives of the people and we are not.
But our differences are not really with the Commons, but with the Government. They have complete control over the present House of Commons. Some of the Members of that House notoriously respond to pagers, through which they are told by Labour headquarters at Millhank not only what to do, but even what to say and what to ask. The trouble lies with the overmighty Executive. Where decisions still remain within our national competence. the Government have too much unfettered power and seem to seek even more.
I welcome the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. When I spoke in our debate on 14th October, I said that the Government's proposals were bound to reduce the independence of this House and to increase the party political element. I am against that. A reduction in the powers of the second Chamber, a possibility suggested on page 40 of the White Paper, would increase the already excessive powers of the Executive.
Perhaps the greatest power that this House still has is our unrestricted ability to veto a Bill extending the life of a Parliament. This is a safeguard against the assumption by any government of dictatorial powers. I should like to ask the Government Chief Whip whether he will confirm that, as I hope, the wording on page 24 of the White Paper means that the Government have no intention of tampering with that power.
The Government's main objection to the present House is the presence of the hereditary element. We all know that hereditary peerages are today intellectually indefensible. but I still believe that there is a good deal to be said for heredity; and there are dangers in arguing that the hereditary principle is always wrong, as Mrs. Beckett came near to doing when she opened the debate in the other place. Like a latter-day tricoteuse, she mocked us while the tumbrils roll. Her speech tended to confirm the suspicion that the real objective of this measure is to give a sop to the unhappy ranks of old Labour.
My noble friend Lord Charteris also warned us in the earlier debate that,
"If we take away the right of all hereditary peers to sit and vote … we endanger the monarchy".—[Official Report, 14/10/98; col. 973.]
When we take the Oath, we do so to the Queen, Her Heirs and Successors. The Government's proposals will leave the monarchy isolated in its dependence on heredity.
1014
The White Paper proposes a transitional House which will be a rump, no longer a true House of Lords, enjoying less credibility and standing than the present House. The historic precedent for a rump Chamber is not encouraging. After the transition, we may move to some form of senate, the composition and powers of which are still unknown to us, and perhaps to the Government as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, suggested in an admirable lecture this month that the reformed House should have power to order a referendum on constitutional issues—a good idea, I think, but it comes a little surprisingly from a Conservative who spoke against the 1993 amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Blake, proposing a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty and from one of the 445 Peers who voted it down. I continue to believe that that vote sounded the death knell of the existing House of Lords.
I should say something about what has variously been described as the Weatherill or Cranborne, or even the Alistair Campbell, amendment. Though it was, I know, promoted with the very best intentions, I have reservations about it, which I have expressed to our Convenor and to some of my colleagues. First, I think it is wrong to describe it as a Cross-Bench initiative; it is no such thing. Cross-Bench Peers were not consulted—I certainly was not. The initiative was taken by three individuals whom I greatly respect; namely, my noble friends Lord Weatherill, Lord Marsh and Lord Carnarvon. They were perfectly entitled to do this., but they are not entitled to expect their Cross-Bench colleagues to support them, nor can they speak for the Cross-Benches as a whole. We all speak and vote purely as individuals.
It was excusable for the media to describe what happened as a Cross-Bench initiative, since the three Peers were all distinguished Cross-Benchers and one was our Convenor; but the Government know perfectly well how Cross-Benchers operate. It seems to me misleading for them to talk, as they do in paragraph 11 of Chapter 5 of the White Paper, of the "cross-bench peers" promoting an amendment. The Cross-Bench Peers as such can do nothing of the sort. 1 am not happy about the way in which collectively we have been associated with this initiative without our views having been sought. Incidentally, it is bizarre that an amendment on precisely these lines, moved in the other place by Conservatives, has already been defeated on the instructions of the Government Whips, while MPs are expected to vote for the amendment if it comes back to them from this House. It is also rather odd that the plan involves non-elected Peers electing some of our own number to remain in the House.
Secondly, I think that my three noble friends and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, after their secret negotiations with Ministers, came out with a poor bargain. What they got is described accurately on page four of the White Paper as an agreement,
"to allow a small number of hereditary peers to sit temporarily in the transitional House".
It seems to me a minimal concession. The price to be paid for this is to abandon the threat of strong and determined opposition and to allow the Bill through

1015
without too much trouble. To adopt the spaniel analogy, which was mentioned at the time, it means that those who do not like the Bill should roll over and lift their paws in the air while the deed is done. I cannot think that a huge concession for a minimal gain is a result to be applauded. It offers notable gains to the Government. As Mr. Peter Mandelson advised the other place on 2nd February: if the Government could get the Bill and the rest of their programme through the Lords with minimum delay and damage, they should grasp the opportunity.
Finally, one of the most unfortunate results of the deal that the four Peers made with the Government was the effect it had on the public standing of hereditary Peers. Before the deal, we were seen as having, mostly, a respectable position. In general, we thought that hereditary Peers would, sadly, have to go, but that they should do so only as part of a single, coherent reform when the Government have made up their minds—as they still have to do—on what they propose for a new second Chamber. But when the deal was disclosed, we were made to appear as if we were all of us scrabbling selfishly to preserve our membership of the House for a little longer. As a result, many people said: "Let them go and good riddance".
The future of the Weatherill/Cranborne amendment appears to rest, first, on whether it is generally supported in this House; and, secondly, on how the House treats the Bill. If we behave nicely and let it through with only a few token amendments, then we shall be tossed our bone as a reward; namely, a small number of hereditaries temporarily preserved with government agreement. If we give the Bill a rough passage, what Mrs. Beckett has described as,
"the possibility of organised disruption and hooliganism"—
which may be one way of describing opposition to radical government proposals—the Government will withdraw their support for the amendment and, if necessary, use the Parliament Act to force the Bill through.
Both those possibilities seem to me to be unfortunate. I should much prefer that the Government should seek a genuine consensus on the way forward, as they say they wish to do. But to do that they would, in my view, need to make a much more substantial concession. I believe that the best move that they could make would be to accept that hereditary Peers, while losing their right to vote (thereby meeting the Labour Party's legitimate concern about the political imbalance of the House) might still attend, speak and serve on committees. After all, this was proposed some time ago from the Labour Benches by a former leader of the House, the noble Earl, Lord Longford. Somewhat similar proposals were made in the cross-party plan of 1967 which, again, came primarily from a Labour source; the late Richard Crossman.
I know that the other place has defeated an amendment on these lines, but if they could be made to change their minds on the Weatherill amendment they can do so on this one. I would gladly support a consensus solution along these lines which might well
1016
secure wide cross-party support. Failing that, I do not think that we should tamely acquiesce in what is being done, to go quietly like those once described by T. S. Eliot:
"They all go into the dark…
The captains, merchant bankers, eminent men of letters …
Distinguished civil servants, chairmen of many committees …
And cold the sense and lost the motive of action".
Better surely to stand up, send the Bill back, amended in a measured way, and ask the other place and the Government to think again as most of us must surely wish.
7.5 p.m.
Viscount Weir: My Lords, I am afraid that I find this White Paper—apart from its nicely coloured cover and charming photograph of the Prime Minister—a document of indifferent and depressing quality. For a start, it is constructed so as to give the impression that—taking them together—the Bill to abolish the hereditaries, the Royal Commission, the Prime Minister's noble self-denying ordinance on patronage, the suggested transitional arrangements, the Joint Committee of both Houses, and indeed the White Paper itself, all form some carefully thought-out constitutional master plan. I think that is nonsense; half these elements were simply imposed on the Government by reality. To pretend otherwise is just humbug or worse.
Then there is the endless repetition of the words "modern" and "modernise", which several speakers have already remarked upon. This is presumably supposed to give some sort of general justification and attraction to the proposals, but I find it tedious and misleading. Surely the word "modern" properly relates to time and history rather than to quality. Is modern architecture automatically better than Robert Adam, and Hymns Ancient and Modern surely suggest no differentiation on quality? But let these comments pass, perhaps I am over-sensitive to the importance of truth and meaning.
Then we come to the mild insults with which the document is so liberally peppered—unresponsive to political and social change, lacking legitimacy, anachronistic, unrepresentative. So it goes on. Only "antediluvian" was omitted. My goodness, after such a barrage, how little self-esteem can any of us have left. But I will let all that pass, except to pick up one remark in the Prime Minister's introduction: that the role of hereditary Peers is based on birth rather than on merit. Of course he is half right as, by obvious definition, a hereditary Peer sits here through birth—a situation, incidentally, which I do not support.
But when it comes to merit in the context of our role, then surely the remark comes close to implying that the life Peers have all the merit and the hereditaries do not. For example—and I hope I am not seeming immodest—after 43 years in manufacturing and being chairman of engineering companies with £5 billion of turnover, my own views on industrial matters might just conceivably have as much merit as those of trade unionist life Peer. But let those remarks pass. I am probably being over-sensitive again.

1017
I turn now to the membership of the Royal Commission. One journal irreverently described them as the "usual suspects". To be kinder, and to use cricket parlance, if Alec Stewart led the Royal Commission out to take the field he would be comforted to be surrounded by so many pairs of safe hands. But I do hope those hands are not too safe. Logically, a better House can only be achieved by either or both improving its membership and improving its powers and way of doing business. Quite radical proposals may indeed be needed to do either, so I hope we do not just have safety first.
Before the Royal Commission is tempted to propose reducing the powers of this House, it really must consider the overall political background. Much has rightly been said about the growth in the power of the executive. In the 17th century parliamentarians—like the ancestor of my noble friend Lord Clitheroe—literally fought to establish the superiority of Parliament over the executive in the shape of the king. In the 20th century, in another place, their successors have just rolled over and acquiesced. So without legislation, without any great debate, and with little public understanding of what has happened, our Prime Minister today has for all effective purposes more power than the directly elected presidents of many countries.
Others have already mentioned symptoms of this process: bending news; closed lists; and the general diminishment of Parliament. I do not need to repeat the whole sorry list, one that is so offensive to democracy. The Royal Commission therefore must certainly keep all those considerations in mind. Indeed the true democracy deficit surely lies in those directions, rather than in the deficiencies of your Lordships' House. Yet it is towards this House that the priority of reform is being directed, and how strange and irrational some of us find that.
As to the future membership of this House, I first remind the Royal Commission that the public hold politicians in rather lower esteem than politicians often hold themselves. In opinion polls, in the bottom places in the league of admired occupations and deep in the relegation zone lie lawyers, estate agents and politicians. So whatever system of selection is proposed, let us hope that perhaps the number of politicians is rather limited. Nor should any future system give us mere delegates, or produce a new class of professional, full-time Members of this House.
Finally, I was much struck by some remarks regarding legitimacy. While I do not defend hereditary membership as legitimate, it is hard to argue that appointment of political friends is wholly legitimate either. I hope that the Royal Commission will have the courage to consider the issue. Indeed I conclude with the unpopular suggestion that when the day comes for most hereditary Peers to leave this House, those life Peers who are political appointees might care to offer themselves for reselection. That would indeed be a truly noble gesture.
7.13 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in a significant and important debate such as this it is inevitable that many issues are raised and ideas put forward. I am tempted to
1018
follow many avenues of thought further. However, there will be other opportunities and so today I shall endeavour to confine my remarks under the twin headings of speed and style.
First, in opening the debate the noble Baroness the Leader of the House dismissed any suggestion that the Government were moving too far and too fast in eliminating hereditary Peers before full consideration had been given to what might succeed them. She said that reform of the House of Lords had been under discussion for some 100 years. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said—this has been echoed by many who have spoken since, but bears underlining yet again—in the first place we are talking about 700 years of history and development. Secondly, we are going through a period of considerable constitutional upheaval with devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales, increased powers for the European Parliament and, let us not forget, the proposals for a mayor of London.
My own preferred option would have been for the Government to announce their intentions clearly and then to set up a Royal Commission to look at the whole of Parliament and its role in the 21st century. I believe that this would have been welcomed on all sides. Only once the role and functions of both Houses have been considered and all the necessary checks and balances built in, should we consider the composition. Therefore like many others who have spoken I condemn the piecemeal approach of the Government as outlined in the White Paper. However, in the absence of what I would call a full and appropriate mandate for a Royal Commission on the whole of Parliament, I hope that my noble friend Lord Wakeham and his team will do their best to act upon all the helpful suggestions that have been made in the course of this debate. I add my own by asking my noble friend to endeavour in his difficult task to safeguard the good points of your Lordships' House, as we were urged to do by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in his remarks yesterday. I refer him also to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, not only of today but those made in the debate last October when he said that it would be a tragedy if the new Chamber lost the essential values of the old one. These he enumerated as an involvement in the culture, beliefs and charitable work of the nation and in the spiritual arid ethical qualities which your Lordships bring to bear on legislation and policy debates.
I draw my noble friend's attention to the other way in which the present composition of your Lordships' House has been both beneficial and effective: namely, that its membership represents a pool of talent and expertise which will be hard to replicate. That pooling system results in Members tending to speak only on those subjects of which they have knowledge and in which they have interest. This ensures the high level of debate which is generally acknowledged. Indeed, the Government have acknowledged the principle of a pool of talent in their references to the bishops and their function in the House in Chapter 7 of the White Paper.
By and large we have few generalists here. This is why many noble Lords do not appear here every day. The jibes in this respect made at the opening of this debate show a lack of understanding of how this House

1019
works. I need hardly say that as well as providing an effective way of scrutinising legislation and ensuring intelligent and well informed debate, your Lordships' House is also extremely cost effective. This again has been referred to by other speakers and, interestingly enough, by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon this afternoon. Therefore I urge the Government, the Royal Commission and everyone else involved in moving this process forward not to insist that speed is the essence, and to consider again whether rushing this major constitutional reform through before the end of this millennium is the best way of ensuring that our Parliament is still regarded with respect and even envy throughout the world.
I turn now to the style in which these proposals have been introduced. The failure on the part of the Government Front Bench to acknowledge the role played by hereditary Peers in helping Parliament to survive and evolve, and in ensuring that legislation is effectively and thoroughly reviewed, is reprehensible to say the least. There is failure, too, to acknowledge that hereditaries have been the first to admit the need for reform and indeed were the first to welcome the Life Peerages Act which, after all, reformed this House more than anything up until then. Happily this failure on the part of the Government Front Bench has been somewhat rectified by two of the rare Government Back-Bench contributions to this debate on the Government's Motion. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who spoke yesterday and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who spoke today.
The suggestion that hereditary Peers and therefore this House do not have democratic legitimacy is, I believe, to misunderstand the definition of democracy. I have had many discussions on this matter with those involved in setting up the new democratic systems in central and eastern Europe after the demise of the Soviet system during my years on the Council of Europe delegation. Democracy is about freedom of speech, openness and transparency of government, accountability of government, guardianship of human rights and having elected representatives. The House of Lords represents all of those elements except the last one. The Government have, so far, not suggested replacing hereditaries with elected members. So I feel that there is absolutely no reason why the House of Lords should be ashamed of its democratic credentials.
During the 14 years I have served in various capacities as a life Peer in your Lordships' House, I have come to realise that in the House of Lords we have a unique resource. Genetic research is a very modern thing. The importance of genes, and the gene bank which the House of Lords represents, was referred to as an important element of this House some months ago by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and the noble Baroness, Lady Strange—all of them experts in this area.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I believe that we should ask the Government to think again. I shall certainly support my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in
1020
his amendment. I wish the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip good luck in his very difficult task of winding up.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, my own considered view on the White Paper was well anticipated by the courteous dismissal of my noble friend Lord Chalfont. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, during my 20 years' membership of your Lordships' House, I, too, have tried to respect the established convention by sticking to economic affairs, in which I might claim some professional competence. But I have most assiduously followed Hansard, and particularly Select Committee reports, on a very much wider range of topics. I have been repeatedly impressed—even astonished—by the remarkable, consistently high contribution of working Peers, not least the hereditaries, performed without publicity and without payment.
The problem remains: what exactly have the Lords done wrong? What have we done wrong, especially when compared with the misdeeds of another place? I join others in saying that, if reform is required, a good start could be made along the passage by culling about half of the teeming total of 659 paid and whipped MPs.
Now that I have retired, I can whisper that economic problems are often much exaggerated, especially by economists. As we saw after 1979, a free economy has almost spontaneous powers of recovery so long as politicians do not muck it up. But the constitutional upheaval that is now threatened is altogether more serious. No one can foretell the results of disrupting the delicate balance of a sophisticated political system. And no one can doubt that Britain's envied stability—unique in Europe since 1688—owes everything to the evolving checks and balances of the British constitution, with this historic House somewhere near the centre.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, as a devoted Savoyard I often take refuge from present troubles in the wisdom and wit of W. S. Gilbert. I never did agree with the Earl of Mount Ararat in Iolanthe, who said that:
"If there is an institution in Great Britain which is not susceptible of any improvement at all, it is the House of Peers".
That cannot be true because it was written before 1958, when we had the leavening of life Peers here.
But Gilbert got it exactly right about the Commons when he put into the mouth of Private Willis the following words:
"When in that House MPs divide
If they've a brain and cerebellum too,
They've got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to".
It is in that fact that the critical superiority of this House lies.
As the noble Lords, Lord Eden and Lord Trefgarne, and others, have wondered, how can any process of popular election or appointment guarantee such independence? It is not only independence, but independence buttressed by the confidence which comes either from heredity or from wide experience, variously in law, economics, banking, business, technology,

1021
medicine. the arts, the countryside, charitable activities, voluntary action, the trade unions, the armed forces, education, public administration, foreign affairs, Europe and much more—including what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, once called the rough old trade of party politics.
I regret very much that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, shows so little respect for this unique assembly—so rich in talents and characters, not least on the Labour Benches. If this House ceases to exist, it could certainly never be reinvented. Yet it is to be casually dismantled and a successor House conjured up—just like that. Here we see old Labour reverting to its primitive shibboleth that a new institution is always better than an old one. We should beware of the same empty slogans—modern, progressive, democratic, comprehensive—that we heard in the 1960s and 1970s when old Labour destroyed proven grammar schools and undermined state education in the space of a single generation.
The country is endlessly told that there are 750 wicked hereditary Peers. Yet only 300 are Tories. Two hundred are independents and most of the rest never attend. Is it not sensible that the role of a checking and revising Chamber, acting on the periodic excesses of raw "democracy", is best performed by more mature senators of a traditional, even conservative inclination? We have learned to defer, mostly gracefully, to the tyranny of the manifesto. Yet new Labour, in 1997, was supported by only 31 per cent. of the electorate—and most of its footling pledges would separately command even fewer votes. It is time that we pricked the absurdly inflated pretensions of so-called "representative democracy", with its focus groups, single-issue lobbies and media management.
So where is the popular mandate? Where is the public clamour for abolition? Despite all the manipulation of opinion, the latest ICM poll in December confirmed a rump of around 25 per cent. of the population as abolitionists, leaving the vast majority of 75 per cent. divided between keeping the status quo permanently or allowing hereditaries to stay until their long-term future has been decided.
Let me briefly touch upon the approach of the two Houses on three recent issues. I need hardly mention the shabby question of the closed list for the European elections, a system which, in the 1930s, might have excluded Churchill from Parliament at the behest of the Tory toffs of the time and which was steamrollered through against our principled objections. Second, on fees for Scottish universities, we had an absurdly Scots-dominated administration overruling us to favour Scottish and continental students against those from England, Wales and Ulster. My third example is more down to earth. On the repeal of restrictions on Sunday shopping., this House led the way with a Private Member's Bill by the then obscure, independent, Conservative Back Bencher, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. Yet when a Bill to repeal the Shops Act was first moved in the other place, it was voted down on Second Reading in craven response to lobbying by USDAW and other vulgar pressure groups from which this splendidly undemocratic House was and remains gloriously immune.
1022
I fear that the Royal Commission is not constituted to resist the trendy clamour by the political elite for a fudged compromise. I despair of the studied absence on that commission of a single hereditary Peer; I resent that absence. I worry a little at the chairman's reputation as a fixer. I recall A. P. Herbert—a splendidly independent university MP, before Labour abolished such valuable anomalies. In an IEA Hobart Paper back in 1960, APH warned against the temptation for Royal Commissions to fall for what he called,
"the nonsense of unanimity".
Dare we hope that at least one of the members of the Royal Commission will read these debates and stick out for a continued, major, independent element of heredity in the House, a practice not unknown in religion.. nor in trade unions, nor in most other aspects of real life? I earnestly urge commissioners to ponder deeply that fruitful debate would be better stimulated by a report which acknowledged a robust clash of principles rather than contrived consensus and conformity born of expediency and compromise.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. I much enjoyed his speech and I agreed with almost all he had to say.
What struck me about the White Paper was its internal contradictions. It starts by listing all the roles that the House of Lords plays. It says that those are all important jobs for a second Chamber. It points out that the workload is increasing and that the contribution of the House to the legislative process is greater than it has been in the past. The White Paper goes on to praise our specialist expertise and independent perspective and the valuable function of scrutiny which we conduct and makes the point that there is a likelihood that real expertise will be available in the House of Lords, which is an important factor in giving its debates authority.
After all that praise, it is something of a surprise to read that we lack political effectiveness. One might have expected that the conclusion of the praise would be a recommendation that we should at least retain our present powers. But in Chapter 7 we see the Government's proposal that our powers should be reduced. That is in spite of all the praise which we receive earlier in the report and in spite of the Labour manifesto which said:
"The legislative powers of the Lords will remain unaltered".
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said yesterday that the Government's position remains unchanged since before the general election. I do not know how she can sustain that claim in view of the proposal that our powers should be reduced. Perhaps she would like to think again about what she said on that point.
I have a second point. There has been much puzzlement about the fact that the Government propose no stage two. There is puzzlement about the reason for their failure to do so. The reason is probably that they could not be confident of proposing a stage two which would be acceptable both to the public and to the Labour Party in another place. To be acceptable to the public,

1023
any stage two would have to contain a significant element of election. However, the greater the elected element, the more unacceptable it becomes to Labour Back-Benchers in another place. The Government perhaps said to themselves, "If we put stage two in the same Bill as stage one we might lose the whole Bill". That has happened before. It happened in 1968. And, of course, at the time the manifesto was drawn up the Prime Minister did not know that he would have in another place a docile majority of 179.
The Labour Government are acting like the Liberal Government of 1911. The preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 states that,
"it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation".
When questions were asked and suspicions raised about the delay which might ensue in bringing forward stage two as foreshadowed in that preamble, Mr. Asquith indignantly and vehemently denied that there would be any unacceptable delay. What happened? The matter was referred to a Cabinet Committee and that committee did not even report back to the whole Cabinet.
I make the point that, like the Liberal Government of 1911, the present Government could perfectly well have put forward proposals for stage two with stage one if they had wished to do so. The point has been made several times, but it is worth making it again, that if they had brought forward even the Royal Commission proposal 18 months ago, we would now be in a much better situation than we are today.
The suspicion must be that what the Prime Minister wanted was a House composed exclusively of life Peers. Fortunately, he and the Labour Government have been driven off that position and into accepting a proposal for a Royal Commission by the opinion polls, which of course they follow closely, and by the appointment of the committee under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. We know of the Prime Minister's enthusiasm for the appointment of life Peers. He has appointed 101 since the general election, of whom 55 are Labour. According to the White Paper, he intends to appoint another 15 to bring parity between the Labour life Peers and the Conservative life Peers.
If the Weatherill amendment is accepted, according to the White Paper he will appoint about another 40 Labour life Peers to match the Conservative hereditary Peers who will be able to continue during the transitional period. One wonders, incidentally, whether those appointed for the transitional period under the Weatherill proposal will be happy to disappear after the transition when the permanent arrangements come into force, a point touched on by my noble friend Lord Jopling when he spoke yesterday. If they do not leave the House at the end of the transitional period, the Prime Minister will have a majority over the Conservative Peers.
I have a third point. Numerous noble Lords have referred to the increasing tendency for more power to be taken by the Executive, mostly at the expense of Parliament. That tendency has accelerated under the
1024
present Government. I shall not go into the many examples of it—they have already been mentioned—but the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, as I followed him, that in the United Kingdom the Executive exercises greater control over the principal parliamentary Chamber than in any comparable country. To adapt a famous parliamentary Motion, I believe that the power of the Executive has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished; and to reduce the powers of your Lordships' House in that situation would be folly.
7.38 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, because what he has said epitomises the wisdom that exists in your Lordships' House. When I was due to take my seat in 1987 I read Dod. If anyone who has not been involved in Parliament or administration takes Dod as a first sup, he is bound to feel inadequate. Looking at the qualities, the education and the service of Members of this House produces a severe effect. However, I managed to get over that. I took heart in the fact that one of my ancestors apparently split the atom and that another two were, by marriage, American Presidents. So whether blood has anything to do with it, we wait to see. I do not know.
I am in complete agreement with many earlier speakers. This is one of the most important debates we have had for many years. The White Paper, Modernising Parliament, which was presented to us in January, contains a variety of interesting facts. But it is unlikely to go down in history as one of the great pillars of the constitution. I shall restrict my remarks entirely to the contents of the White Paper.
A major concern, as a number of noble Lords have already indicated, is that implicitly within the White Paper we are stepping into the unknown by tinkering with only one part of the constitutional arrangements without properly considering what the impact of those changes will be on the overall governance of this country.
Over a long period of time we have evolved a system which provides a real and tangible role for this House. We are a revising Chamber with a clear duty to scrutinise, amend and approve legislation initiated in another place. We have another important role; namely, to ask the elected politicians from time to time to think again, particularly when their proposals have a moral dimension which is out of sympathy with the will of the electorate. Given that role, what should the composition of this House be? I submit that we need to be widely representative in a sense that professional politicians can never be.
I have friends of all political persuasions in another place, but it is clear from the manner of their debates that they are unable to shake off the ideological and party-political baggage that put them there in the first place. The present Parliament is probably worse in that respect than any Parliament has ever been. That makes it doubly important that this House should draw from a far wider representation. The method we have chosen to

1025
achieve that for hundreds of years has been to utilise the principle of heredity. That is not the only method that might be used. Indeed, it has been mentioned that in ancient Greece senators were chosen by drawing lots. I am certainly not saying that the hereditary system is the only system that should be considered to achieve the job. What I would suggest, however, is that it is a system that has stood the test of time and which has certain advantages.
If we look around the world we see many forms of government—military dictatorships, unelected commissions, anarchy and what we choose to call democracy. It is fascinating that each of these systems throws up an element of the hereditary. If we look at the United States, which prides itself on the purity of its democracy, we find that some names, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Rockefeller and now, of course, Bush, seem to pop up again and again. As my noble friend Lord Cranborne observed when the present Leader of the House was appointed it is very reassuring that she is the daughter of such a distinguished and noble father.
I would therefore urge the Royal Commission when it reviews these matters widely, not to reject absolutely the hereditary principle, at least in part, when defining the composition of a second Chamber.
The present proposal, as framed, carries great dangers since it tinkers with a well-established protocol of checks and balances. I believe that the simple removal of the sitting and voting rights of all hereditary Members of this House, without defining clearly what will replace them, is a dangerous step which will be both destructive and divisive. It will further tilt the balance in the direction of the overwhelming power that the Prime Minister and his executive Cabinet already wield.
This country does not understand the way in which your Lordship's House as it is currently composed carries out its duties. Sadly, our education curriculum no longer teaches the importance of our constitution to the ranks of students and citizens of this country. As a result, the so-called modernisers are able to pursue a path of radical and ill-conceived change without a full understanding by the public at large of what is going on.
A difficulty is that your Lordship's House, irrespective of its composition, must depend upon the public understanding of its role within our constitution if it is to have a credible future. I believe that we must fight to maintain a second Chamber with the widest possible representation and with a degree of dignity and wisdom that is above the hubbub of the daily political cut and thrust.
By all means let us have change. But I urge that it be a well-considered, steady and incremental change, which, I submit, the present proposal is not.
7.46 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, as with previous debates on reform of this House, we tend to create more questions than answers and are accused of debating at length rather than in depth. Yesterday, it was suggested that the time would be better spent discussing health, education and welfare rather than the future functions and powers of this House. That so few Labour Peers are speaking in this debate does not surprise me. If, as
1026
suggested by the Government Front Bench, the debate is time-wasting, the Labour Back-Benchers will not want to be seen adding to the waste of time.
Sadly, what the Government have failed to realise is just how much time and effort, for no financial reward, many regularly attending hereditary Peers put in to trusts, charities and other organisations outside this House which need, and often deserve, a voice in Parliament. Those organisations could well be connected to the three topics that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House mentioned yesterday: health, education and welfare. For my part, as an example, I visit and speak for the National Parks of England and Wales; and on behalf of the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, to name but two interests. I act as a rural voice in policy and legislative scrutiny--an angle not guaranteed in the other place. The White Paper does not come near to touching the ramifications involved in what so many of those organisations require; namely, to lodge a voice in Parliament.
Just like the farmer and the hereditary Peer—I have been privileged to be both—we are not all tarred with the same brush. A farmer's financial position can vary widely, from wealthy landowner to tenant farmer with farming sons whose land is financed by the collateral of the father's land, to farmers who have only family as staff to work the land and eke out a living. So we hereditaries are diverse. The Oath of Allegiance has given many of us the chance to put something back through this Chamber. My past efforts have, given me the opportunity to afford the time to be involved in this place and to put time in, for want of a better expression, to good works in which I believe. Does the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms believe that the action the Government propose to take can be lawfully entered into when our Letters Patent conferred on our ancestors, giving them, their heirs and successors rights which include a seat in Parliament, and given by a deceased sovereign, could be said to be a binding contract in perpetuity? I do not mean our Writ of Summons.
I cannot believe that the Government appreciate the diversity and value for money offered by the present make up of this Chamber. The only imbalance in this House has been the over-weighted vote of Conservatives in a rare and heavy Whip which has not been democratic in my view. Democracy should have sorted that imbalance many years ago. However, we are a revising Chamber and should be able to press the Government hard without having to hear so much spin on so-called defeats.
Both my grandfathers sat in this place. I must be a rare breed. The noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms—I am sorry he is not in his seat--will know, as a fellow agriculturalist, that there is an interest in the revival of rare breeds. My father's father was in Attlee's Government and became Leader of this House. (How often are we reminded of the Salisbury-Addison convention). My mother's father was a Lord Spiritual in the true sense of the word, a Bishop of London. If I learnt anything from them it was this: if you sit anywhere in the House of Lords, except on occasions on the Government Front Benches, you may

1027
speak from the heart. In the other place, you toe the party line or the wrath of the party Whips will be upon you.
It is the honesty and true feeling that exude from this place that must be preserved. So-called modernising will lose that identity, just as modern buildings thrown up with little thought will destroy the identity of an historic town or city.
Around the world we are seen as the Chamber of common sense. Are we shortly to be seen as an impotent second Chamber? In this debate I have listened to many adjectives describing which way this House should be reformed: strengthening, not modernising; it is hard to build but easy to destroy; underpin not undermine; reforming, not replacing; evolution, not revolution.
During reform it must be right to retain those who understand the workings of this House. A full-time, paid up Chamber is far less likely to take up the needs and fears of outside organisations. This country should have no illusions. At present, there will be a Member of this House who will have knowledge on virtually any subject you care to mention. There must be technical expertise in agricultural, environmental and financial matters in government legislation, and experience from the real world outside politics and from beyond the M.25.
This House already has the letters QBE after its name. This House is already Qualified by Experience. I support much of what many speakers have already said: the noble Lords, Lord Trefgarne, Lord Norrie and Lord Norton, spoke of the consequences of government actions; that there should be reform of the House of Commons before the House of Lords; that our costs are one-tenth those of the House of Commons; and that we should remain as we are until the country, through the Royal Commission, knows the outcome of stage two. We have heard so often the phrase: do not embark on the journey unless you know the destination of the train. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said that we should look more in depth at attendance figures. We should be seen for what we have done, not for what we are.
We have the chance to continue to evolve. If hereditary Peers are to die out and their sons and daughters not to take their place, then so be it. A cull is no better than the horrific BSE cull. A cull of QBE, a cull of many qualified by experience, makes no sense. I support the call to wait for the Royal Commission to report and I shall support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, I am sad that there are so few representatives on the Government Benches. I sincerely hope that that does not reflect a lack of enthusiasm or commitment to what I believe is an extraordinarily important White Paper.
I wish to talk for a moment about the manifesto and consensus. I am concerned at the sequence of events that the present Government have contrived to bring about. Their manifesto states that:
"the right of the hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute".
1028
The present Government presume correctly that through the Salisbury doctrine they have the right to enact primary legislation for the matters that are their concern on health, education and welfare et cetera, but they presume, incorrectly in my opinion, that under the same doctrine they can also introduce fundamental modifications to the constitutional arrangements for governing the country. Their presumption is on the basis of support achieved at a general election for constitutional change set out in their manifesto, but among a wide range of other non-constitutional proposals.
Yet even now the Government have little idea of the role to be played by your Lordships' House, the composition of membership or the means of selection that is appropriate. So should we not ask how much less can the public have been aware of the consequences of their policies for constitutional change that were outlined in their manifesto? The Government will, I believe inappropriately, argue that they have the right to carry out all or any of their election manifesto pledges; and because we have no written constitution in this country there is no rule setting out whether or not their present actions in introducing fundamental constitutional change are legitimate.
I believe that their actions are neither appropriate nor legitimate when they concern the variation of constitutional arrangements of this country without a specific referendum. Let us take their own example. In the case of devolution they have been scrupulous in demanding referenda, but they have failed, I submit, in their haste, to allow adequate time for the development of consensus and popular support for measures that are often quite reasonable. The result is indifference, and at times alienation, in the public's mind. That worries me.
I want most earnestly to draw the attention of noble Lords to the dangerous precedent set by any tacit acceptance that a manifesto pledge can or should be allowed, alone, to alter constitutional arrangements. We know well that in our legal system the setting of precedent prevents or at least undermines the prevention of similar and subsequent action or policy. So I beg noble Lords to consider what future constitutional change might be introduced on the basis of a manifesto and whether it is desirable to permit such methods of introducing constitutional change on the basis of the Salisbury doctrine alone.
In the debates leading to the Parliament Bill of 1910–11 Lord Lansdowne stated, in referring to the possible slender majority of the Commons and the patchwork of causes upon which the majority might have been returned, that the most fundamental issues are to be at the mercy of the House of Commons:
"It may insist upon the passage of measures inflicting irreparable injury upon our most cherished institutions. The Crown is not safe, the Constitution is not safe, the Union is not safe, the Church is not safe, our political liberties are not safe, literally no institution, however much revered and respected in this country, is beyond the reach of a majority of the kind which I described just now".
I believe that there is much sympathy for many of the principles of change and legislation outlined in the Labour Party's manifesto. But I do not believe that

1029
every policy outlined in the manifesto is either correct or desirable. Indeed, the Government have not attempted, as yet, to introduce all items of the manifesto and do not feel obliged to do so, I believe, in spite of the supposed obligation to the voter and legitimacy of their election mandate.
I take most seriously the fact that there is deception, in my opinion, in the manner in which the Government have succeeded in bringing us to the point of altering the constitutional arrangements. They have done so without making any clear assessment of the long-term nature of the constitutional arrangements that the country might enjoy, without holding a referendum on the basis of the changes to the constitution, as they have seen fit to do on other constitutional measures that they have developed, and without a reasoned, specific and unique mandate from the people. Quite obviously, the Government do not care adequately about voters—the primary stakeholders—since they have made little attempt outside the general election to obtain their support or build a consensus as to how they might benefit from any new arrangements.
Such is the Government's confidence in their power and majority that they do not adequately promote their often very good policies and manage their implementation. I have watched with great interest the development of the policies of the present Administration, in particular the proposed arrangements for the devolution of power through the regional development agencies, the Greater London Authority and the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. The introduction of these devolutionary policies has been accomplished with great urgency and not too much concern for the legitimacy given to those policies by a sufficient turnout at referendas. The turnout in the GLA referendum was particularly poor; only some 34 per cent. of the electorate voted. I felt strongly that the timing of the referendum was related to the timetable of the Government and not to generating the support of the people.
I believe that the Government did little to develop consensus and enhance the participation, sense of ownership and involvement of people in the policies supposedly being developed for their benefit. Yet I know from my experience in the planning of institutional and development policies in countries around the world on behalf of the World Bank and other international agencies that the support of the primary stakeholder—the voter—is critical for the implementation of reform policies. It is not the Government who carry through reform but the people, and their support can be achieved only if there is adequate time given to developing the policy and planning its implementation and integration into the particular social, economic, institutional and political environment. Policy must be given legitimacy through the adequate building of consensus and approval and, thereafter, continuous adjustment in the light of people's changing needs.
I wonder whether we see these correct principles being followed in the White Paper. We see a pattern of laudable government objectives as expressed in the manifesto. The enormous good will shown by the people
1030
of the United Kingdom at the last General Election towards the new Labour Party was very positive, but I fear that that can be eroded if the political leadership insists on irreverent haste, gives insufficient time for the building of consensus and has inadequate patience to promote its policies.
I believe that the lessons of what I have mentioned apply very much to the present debate. The people of the United Kingdom face the added danger that there is no guarantee that the Government will succeed in achieving a positive and beneficial outcome through the deliberations of the Royal Commission. That possibility was not put to the people at the last general election. Are we not witnessing in the White Paper, sadly, a deception of the British people, not because of poor intentions—for reform is undoubtedly necessary for the whole of Parliament—but because of the Government's illogical means of implementation, lack of analysis before synthesis and inability to analyse appropriate functions before giving form to the policies for change?
These failings, especially on matters of great national importance, do not respect the increasing power of discernment and reason of the people of the United Kingdom. Cannot the Government find a more consensual way of instigating a constitutional change, perhaps through the holding of a referendum, that would follow the sound precedent of their other devolution policies, before carrying out the irreversible action that is proposed in the Bill for the abolition of the hereditary Peers that is now before the House of Commons?
8.4 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, this is not the occasion for a Second Reading speech nor given the time and the fact that there are 27 speakers to come, do I believe that there should be repetition of the extremely good points that have been raised in noble Lords' speeches to date. I shall concentrate, therefore, on seven specific extracts from the White Paper. I start with Chapter 7, paragraphs 15 and 17. This is the one occasion on which 1 believe I can agree with the White Paper. It lauds the work of the Select Committees of the House and in paragraph 17 it states specifically that in regard to EU policies,
"the present House of Lords has made a well-regarded contribution in this area, and this scrutiny function is one which the Government thinks could usefully be retained and expanded in the reformed House".
I therefore find it very interesting to go back to Chapter 2 where in paragraph 5 the White Paper speaks of the reform of the House of Commons and states that,
"a significant programme to modernise the procedures has already been agreed. This has included changes to strengthen the scrutiny of European legislation".
Hooray, my Lords! The other place is learning something from this House.
I turn next to Chapter 2. paragraph 15:
"The continuing right of the whole"—
I emphasise that word
"hereditary peerage to sit and vote has been accepted as an anomaly for most of this century, even by the House of Lords itself'.
I fully concur with that and have done so fir many years. I do not believe that I have ever been so embarrassed as I was by the turn-out of the

1031
back-woodsmen of my party at the time of the vote on Maastricht. Frankly, that was a disgrace. But I ask the Government why there should be reverse discrimination. Why should the 200 hereditary Peers—I do not stick specifically to that number—who have really put their backs into the work of this House be subject to reverse discrimination? Why should they be washed down the plughole with the rest of the bathwater?
Referring to Chapter 3, paragraph 9, the White Paper contains a most interesting statement on which I should be grateful if the Government Chief Whip could comment in due course. It states:
"The House of Lords functions in a different way from the Commons. Government business has no priority".
For the past three for four weeks I have been battling to get a slot for a debate on an EU report by a sub-committee which I had the honour to chair. I had a tremendous battle, rightly so, with the Clerk concerned who told me that on one day there was one Government Bill and on another day there were two Government Bills. I should very much appreciate the noble Lord's comment on that matter.
As to paragraphs 18 and 19 of Chapter 3 one must seriously query the statement that the Conservatives have
"a clear majority over the other parties overall",
and an overwhelming majority over other Peers. If one looks at paragraph 18 the arithmetic simply does not add up. I do not take the matter any further. All one has to do is look at those two paragraphs. Even I, a not wildly intelligent mathematician, can work out that that statement by the Government is not true.
I turn to Chapter 4, paragraph 4, which makes reference to the interests of Members of this House. It states:
"In the case of the hereditary peers, the selection of interests which are covered is purely random".
I cannot argue with that; that is absolutely true. However, to use an expression which has become very out of date, outmoded and almost rejected at large, "it works". The selection of interests is in this House as it stands. In the 24 years that I have had the privilege to attend this House I have been constantly staggered by the different interests shown by Members of your Lordships' House. Whether they are hereditary or life Peers is quite irrelevant. They are here. Why throw them away?
Finally I turn to Chapter 8, paragraph 3. I believe that this is a point which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, raised. It states,
"The United Kingdom has been able, at least on the mainland of Great Britain, to avoid violent constitutional convulsions for three centuries".
How lucky we are that we have done just that! I submit that that might just have had to do with the hereditary system keeping control of this House and therefore, it is hoped, of at least influencing another place.
We have to go through five chapters out of the eight in the White Paper to get even to a transitional House. It seems that the Government are trying desperately to justify themselves in Chapters 1 to 5. Increasingly, the
1032
other place does not know—and frankly does not want to know—how this House works or what its value is. I make no apologies for marginal repetition. Surely, parliamentary democracy is the key. With its massive majority in another place the present Government are—and therefore this country has at present—an executive dictatorship. As Lord Acton wrote 110 years ago almost to the day,
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
In the current situation I submit that the onus on this House is very considerable in that context. Change in and to this House must take place only if it is for the better. I take no comfort at all from Footnote 5 of the House of Commons Research Paper 99/6 on the House of Lords Bill Options for "Stage Two". It reads:
"Reform denotes change generally, not necessarily for the better".
Assuming as I must that the Government concur with that definition I urge all noble Lords to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
8.12 p.m.
The Earl of Dudley: My Lords, it is an honour and a challenge to follow the authoritative and thoughtful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and to have heard the good points that he made.
The White Paper sets out New Labour's plan to modify genetically the structure of this House by replacing the hereditaries with mutants, likely to be neither fish nor fowl. Whoever the authors—possibly Mandelson, probably not Monsanto—they lack manners and style by dumping us hereditaries so brusquely and unceremoniously before the end of the lifetime of the present Parliament for which we have unexpired warrants; or before some of us of long standing had time to die in harness; and before the geneticists had time to consider the biological make-up of our mutants.
The White Paper airs Labour's prejudice against the hereditary principle; ventilates the Government's grievance about the inbuilt Tory majority; panders to prejudice; and seeks to remedy the grievance and redress the balance by getting rid of the hereditaries. The Government have given little thought to the consequences of their reforming zeal. That is left to the Appointments Commission, the Royal Commission and the Joint Committee.
I do not propose to waste your Lordships' time especially at this time of night in defence of the hereditary peerage. I could say more, but much would be repetitious; and all would fall on deaf ears. On this point Labour have been consistent for many years. However, I do not share the optimism which seems to prevail on all sides of the House, including from some unexpected quarters, that all will proceed merrily as before without the hereditaries. Our defenestration is a profound constitutional change, which may well have unexpected and unforeseen consequences. For instance, until now, no one needed to concern themselves unduly as to whence much of the membership of this House would come, and who, or how many they would be. Now this has become highly controversial, with calls for deliberations by a Royal Commission, and a large

1033
expenditure of taxpayers' money. It will now be a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues to consider the outcome of the constitutional change and its impact on this House.
I am happy to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, although its signal, and the Government's reaction to it, are largely of academic interest as far as I am concerned, since I am unlikely to be affected by its repercussions. I support it because, like the noble Viscount, Lord Oxford, I was brought up to believe in the efficacy of constitutional checks and balances; and because I see this House as the only counterweight to the power of the other place, which is still powerful enough to kick me out of this House despite the technological advances to which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred and which he considers circumscribes the power of that House.
Whatever the constitutional future of this House, the White Paper makes two important declarations about its powers which seem to me to reflect their qualified acceptance by the Government. The first, on page 40 is as follows:
"In other respects, the powers are theoretically the same as those of the Commons and spring from the House's character of a chamber of Parliament".
In this day and age when parliamentary powers in a democracy are a mandate of the people, this admission about the derived powers of a parliamentary chamber so remote from the electorate is remarkable. No doubt the same thought occurred to the authors of Chapter 7 paragraph 26, which is the subject of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. It should also be a source of satisfaction to those noble Lords who prefer their future to be in a cosy and minimally reformed Chamber, where the life Peers, responsible to no one but themselves, and secure from the disturbance of the hustings, can continue to enjoy the perks, pomp and circumstance bequeathed to them by the hereditaries.
The second declaration, on the same page, is that,
"The powers of the House of Lords, as normally exercised in practice observing the conventions, have most often produced a workable relationship between the two Houses of Parliament".
How does that statement equate to that on page 28? It states:
"The dominance of hereditary peers in the House of Lords … produces undemocratic results. It gives a huge in-built advantage to one … party",
which, on the evidence of the White Paper, has not generally taken advantage of that huge in-built majority. And if the relationship between the Houses has been workable, why does over 50 per cent. of the Membership of one House of Parliament need to be evicted like squatters at the behest of the other House?
I ask myself how the House will fare without the hereditaries—a thought doubtless shared by other noble Lords, A great deal has been said about the amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, when the Lords reform Bill comes to the Committee stage of this House. It is supposedly in conformity with the Cranborne agreement, now apparently restyled the Weatherill amendment, perhaps to spare the susceptibilities of Mr. William Hague. No doubt when the time comes the noble Lord will reveal his reasons
1034
for moving the amendment. Meanwhile the White Paper has this to say on the subject. I believe that it has been quoted before but I need to repeat it.
"If the cross-bench peers promote an amendment for the interim retention of 1 in 10 of the hereditary peers, plus some hereditary office holders, until the second stage of House of Lords reform has taken place, the Government is minded to accept this amendment as a prudent and sensible route towards the early termination of the right of all hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House".
This so called concession, allowing dead men to walk for one year, has been cobbled as a short-term stay of execution for the hereditary elite. I for one shall, when the time comes, be unwilling to accept a Trojan horse and shall expect powerful persuasion from those supporting the amendment, and greater flexibility from the Government Front Bench, not to vote against it.
So how will the House fare? In Chapter 6, paragraph 5, the White Paper makes a commitment to the life Peers as follows:
"New Members of the House of Lords will continue to be appointed in accordance with the Life Peerages Act 1958. There will be for the time being"—
I hope noble Lords take note of that qualification—
"no changes to the conditions attached to life peerages".
That is to state the obvious. The Government, having put retribution before reform, are left without a choice. When we hereditaries go we leave behind us only the 500 or so life Peers, plus the bishops—or should l say the right reverend Prelates? Without the life Peers there would be no House of Lords, especially as the bishops alone would not constitute a quorum of 30 for Divisions on legislation. But, as several speakers, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, have pointed out, the life Peers have no greater legitimacy than the hereditaries. They are neither representative nor democratic. I hold them in high regard as meritocrats for their proven wide experience and ability. But the Life Peerages Act had consequences unforeseen and unintended by the Macmillan government, of which the noble and learned Lord, (then Viscount), Lord Hailsham, was a Member.
The aim was to recruit for the Lords those eminent persons, especially the Labour elite, whose consciences did not permit them to accept hereditary peerages. Lord Brand, in a prophetic speech, foresaw the day when as a result no Prime Minister of whatever political complexion would want to create further hereditary peerages. But no one imagined the flood of life Peers which would erupt into this House from the other place, from the Civil Service, from the Armed Services, from local authorities, from industry, from the City, from the teaching profession, the media and the arts. They are now, we are told, to be followed by chefs, bus conductors, taxi drivers—an excellent source of good debating material—and, it is to be hoped for noble Lords, a few air hostesses.
How long will this continue? How long will it be before a majority of the British people as taxpayers, as voters, even as lovers of the Lords, say, "This is enough! Why a House of Lords? Let's have done with all this pomp and ceremony". I myself, unlike many noble Lords, favour an elected second Chamber, perhaps of senators from different counties or whatever it takes to fill the need of a revising Chamber. But I have not time

1035
for that today, except to say that I reject the title of Tory Jacobin, as bestowed by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, on those of us who feel that a second elected Chamber is desirable.
Of course, the Government could still save time, money and endless confusion by swallowing their prejudices and leaving this House of Parliament well alone.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I enjoyed very much the words of the noble Earl, especially those which related to the role of the life Peers in the transitional House. I shall take that up in a moment, but in the meantime I wish to take up two points made in this debate and in the previous debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, mentioned that he could not think of a way whereby a younger element could come into the Lords through the hereditary system. As I said in the previous debate, I am the younger son of an hereditary Peer. It is possible to enter this House at the age of 37, as I did, and I do not see why other sons or grandsons of the hereditary Peers who will be leaving us cannot return if they so wish. It is quite possible and thoroughly desirable.
I would like also to expand briefly on the point about the hereditary principle which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, made on 15th October when winding up our previous debate on the future of this House. If we go further back in time than the noble Lord did—beyond the feudal system, the last vestiges of which will disappear in the modernised House—we will discover, as did the noble Lord, Lord Williams, our real heritage and thereby perhaps gain a more accurate perspective of our true ancestry. Let us hear what Sir Fred Hoyle, the great cosmologist, wrote in his autobiography while tracing his ancestry back through the mists of time. He wrote:
"Mankind has not changed much since the days of Cro-Magnon man, days separated from our own times by a thousand generations … Every one of us has an immense line that would sweep even the greatest dynasties of recorded history into affairs of minor consequence.
And before Cro-Magnon man there were upwards of ten thousand generations, so many that the imagination is too staggered to conceive of what happened to them all … What we actually see are nothing but bits of foam at the surface of the vast ocean of prehistory".
The latest information from the palaeontologists is that the ancestry of humanity might go back more than 5 million years. However, it is only in the past 50 years that mankind has developed the resources which, unless properly monitored and controlled, may harbour the seeds of our own destruction by the end of the third millennium. Is it not a fact that the responsibility for monitoring and controlling forces capable of endangering global society must ultimately rest with legislative chambers around the world—including our own, which is the subject of our debate? The question I am endeavouring to ask is: should not a modern second Chamber have adequate facilities, human or otherwise, to monitor all technical legislation effectively in order to help prevent a major global catastrophe, such
1036
as global warming, or unprincipled commercial interests profiteering from shoddy legislation? That was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, as was the power and the force of the commercial world in which we live today.
How can parliamentarians in the transitional House be alert to these threats to future society if they are not technically or scientifically competent to do so? Can a democratically elected Chamber provide all the necessary expertise to achieve this end? I doubt it. How well qualified are the existing life Peers? For example, what percentage of life Peers in the modernised transitional Chamber will be computer literate? And I also wonder whether even more can be done to assist noble Lords who might want to prepare for their work in the new House by either updating their existing computer skills or learning them from the beginning. If a modernised and reformed second Chamber is to do its job of scrutinising technical legislation properly, surely it should have modern facilities and procedures to allow it to do so. For instance, there is nowhere to put a laptop, to plug it in, or to receive e-mail within miles of the Chamber.
The question now is: what are the terms and conditions of the 500 life Peers in the transitional House? Will those terms be adequate to persuade the new life Peers selected by the independent appointments commission to give up time from their otherwise profitable and more remunerative activities in order to scrutinise and vote on in Committee the type of technical Bills mentioned? And on the question of time available, will not the reduction in the number of days spent on Bills by the honourable and right honourable gentlemen in another place put even more pressure on the reformed second Chamber and on its old and new life Peers?
Therefore, what incentives, if any, in the form of improved facilities and communications will be made available to life Peers in the modernised version of your Lordships' House? And will the transitional House agree to set times for votes in the evening? That point was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. When there is a key evening vote, why should the unpaid and so-called "amateur" legislators of the modernised second Chamber not be able to enjoy quality time with their families or attend evening engagements? Their counterparts in the other place can do this on Opposition days when votes are taken only at 7 and 10 p.m. Surely it should not be beyond the capabilities of the usual channels in a modernised transitional House to devise an agreed evening voting procedure which takes place, not just on Opposition days but at all times, at 7 or 10 p.m.?
Does not the passage of the House of Lords reform Bill offer the only opportunity for life Peers in the ranks, so to speak, to obtain better terms and facilities for themselves in this modernised, transitional Chamber? Therefore, I suggest to all the 500 life Peers who will be in the transitional House, regardless of where they may sit in the Chamber, that they abstain on any vote which may take place between the hours of 7 and 10.30 p.m. I mentioned that in the Tea Room and the effect on the Government Benches seems to have been electric. I am greatly encouraged by that response.

1037
Seriously, that is the only way that we shall achieve proper terms and conditions under which to work in a so-called modern House. There will be a heavier workload. Pressure will be put upon us to sit on committees because the hereditary Peers will no longer be available to do so. What are we to do? That has not been considered. I suggest that life Peers should continue to be as obstructive and difficult as possible with this Bill until we obtain a proper, sensible and detailed statement from the Government as to what those terms and conditions will be. What changes will be made to those conditions when the new House is formed?
In order to challenge the Executive and to question and scrutinise technical Bills which threaten not only society in this country but beyond, we need people in this House with a scientific background who are articulate and competent to explain the dangers of such Bills. If there is sloppy legislation, there will be unscrupulous organisations which will be only too delighted to take advantage of it.
However, if the terms and conditions for new life Peers in this House are difficult, noble Lords will simply not attend. They all have other and—I do not wish to disrespectful—better jobs to do rather than sit in this House and wait for five or six hours for a vote at some unknown time in the middle of the night. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that I am afraid that I shall take my own advice. It seems that the vote will take place after 10.30, and I shall not vote in this House between the hours of seven o'clock and 10.30 or at any time after 10.30. I strongly recommend that all life Peers should tell their Whips that they intend to have that time as their own during the course of the Bill until we are told exactly what our conditions are to be; otherwise, we shall riot be present. I shall be a permanent abstainer until that information is made clear.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I begin by apologising to the House for not being in my place yesterday but I have returned early from a business visit abroad because I believe that this is one of the most important debates that this House has had and is ever likely to have.
I am afraid that what is being foisted upon this House, upon Parliament and upon the British people is nothing less than an alarming confidence trick. It is dressed up in a number of ways: that this House is undemocratic as it is presently structured; that hereditary Peers are unrepresentative; that this House has too much power; and that, because superficially it seems out of date, bringing it more up to date will make it more efficient and, as a result, the public will have more confidence in it and, therefore, it will serve the totality of Parliament better and so serve the country better.
Beguiling though some of those arguments may be to some people, when looked at objectively I believe that the Government's proposals and those arguments are at best cynical but at worst, a highly dangerous tampering with the constitution which has evolved over hundreds of years, more especially as they do not address the concept of Parliament as a whole.
1038
I have always tried to characterise the constitution—probably over-simplifying it—as a five-legged stool: the monarchy, the Lords, the Commons, the judiciary and the Church. Each is more or less in balance with the other. Cut off any part of any leg of that stool or change the composition of that leg and the whole stool will begin to rock.
Change to any one part of the constitution is certain in time to affect the rest. In the 22 years or so that I have been in your Lordships' House, I have seen it change enormously. I have also seen its relationship with another place change fairly markedly. The increase in the numbers of life Peers and the roles of Select and European Communities Committees are two obvious elements of change. I have seen the need to scrutinise major Bills, not only from a political point of view but most particularly, as my noble friend Lord Cranborne said, from a practical and legislative view as the other place becomes unwilling or unable to attend to the necessary detail emerging from overworked parliamentary counsel and draftsmen.
On no occasion whatever have I heard it claimed seriously that this House as presently composed is not effective; that it does not do its job; has not proved itself a thoroughly responsible revising and, I should add, advising Chamber. The only charge seems to be that by virtue of its constitution it is unable to exercise sufficient power in Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, asked whether there is any real public clamour to change the composition of this House. Can the party opposite seriously claim that its manifesto commitment to throw out hereditary Peers was the fundamental reason for its success at the 1997 general election? If it does, why is this debate on reformation so poorly attended by the Labour Party? When the noble Lord, Lord Carter, winds up the debate, perhaps he will explain why his noble friends are unable to support the proposals which those on his side of the House are making.
Lord Carter: My Lords, had the noble Lord been here yesterday, perhaps he could make that point.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I explained why I was not and the noble Lord has not answered the question I posed. However, he has time enough to answer it in his wind-up speech.
I too believe that the whole concept—and I am sorry to say it but I believe it to be true—arises from prejudice stoked up by good, or rather, bad old-fashioned socialism. None of us can easily justify history. The history and evolution of this House are of the past arid of the present. It has given us a House which does its job fairly well. No one has fundamentally argued otherwise. The combination of hereditary and life Peers seems to have been an extraordinary success.
Other than for reasons of dogma, there can be no enthusiasm to embark upon such a perilously complex change, more especially when it is back to front and supported by an exceedingly thin White Paper suggesting models for its replacement which the Royal Commission must take as the basis for its work.

1039
I have become rather sick of saying half-heartedly that I cannot defend why I am here; that change is inevitable; and that my own party has somehow shrunk from tackling this issue in the past, as though I am embarrassed to be here. I know I am lucky to be here and I am certainly proud to have played a part over the years. Governments of all hues may feel uncomfortable with a second Chamber which exerts its views from time to time. That cannot be construed as an unelected Chamber riding roughshod over another place. This House may well discuss abstract matters. It certainly debates all manner of issues. But fundamentally, it examines legislation in detail—legislation often stemming from the loose words of party manifestos but legislation which must stand the full scrutiny and application of law and the test of time. Even then its purpose is to examine detail, not to throw out principle.
This House is broadly representative and is made so not just by life Peers, Law Lords and Bishops but by what amounts to the random selection, which was referred to earlier, from every walk of life represented by hereditary Peers. Hereditary Peers have no political ambition and no serious axe to grind. They bring their various experiences to bear freely and willingly. And their determination to uphold what is right and best for the country as a whole is enormously more important to them than blind loyalty to party politics.
I believe that the Bill to eject hereditary Peers is bad enough but to do so in the light of this woolly White Paper and without stating clearly what is to replace them is nothing short of preposterous. It emasculates part of Parliament; it ignores the balance which exists between both Houses; and it offers absolutely no solution as to how it can be recreated. It invites the country to take a very dangerous step into the unknown. Most important, to suggest that this House should have less power when it is already able to exercise very little is positively horrifying. Therefore, I most strongly support my noble friend's amendment.
But I go one step further in my criticism. As the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, seemed to suggest in his speech, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Government respect no view other than their own. They want to have their way at any cost whatever the damage to the constitution—and all in the name of so-called "modernisation".
This House currently has one absolute power; that is, enforcing the quinquennial Act. The White Paper pays but lip service to that; it gives no explanation as to how the absolute independence of this House might be maintained or recreated so as to ensure that the governing party goes to the country every five years. What a positively alarming prospect and what a daunting task for my noble friend Lord Wakeham and his commission to sort out.
The whole concept of restructuring this House as the White Paper foreshadows is based on dogma. It has no foundation on practical grounds or properly considered constitutional theory. It rides roughshod over historical evolution and precedent. By throwing out hereditary Peers the Government are at a stroke cutting away one
1040
pillar of the constitution with no idea of what is to replace it, thereby jeopardising the rest. I believe strongly that it is a recipe for parliamentary and possibly wider strife. The sooner that Parliament as a whole and the country at large wakes up to what is at stake, the better.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Forbes: My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, who speaks with such great authority. Let me say straight away that I am amazed that this White Paper suggests that the powers of this House might be significantly reduced. To do that would be a disaster. This House has got to hold the Executive to account and it cannot do that without independence and authority. That point has been made already by many other Peers, so I shall now pass to more positive matters.
Having been a Member of your Lordships' House for a considerable number of years, I venture to suggest that this House works well. It is respected by the people of this country, among other things for keeping the balance of power but also for the way in which it scrutinises much hasty legislation as well as, from time to time, asking another place to think again. I believe that the great majority of your Lordships would agree with me that this House is effective and does an excellent job in the interests of our country.
However, it must be acknowledged that the Government have made it abundantly clear that they object to the present large and disproportionate number of Conservative hereditary Peers who can pass through the Division Lobbies. The Government have a case. In view of that I want to suggest what I hope will be taken as a constructive solution to this problem. It has already been touched on by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, towards the end of her excellent speech.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who is not present today, I am one of the few who did not come to your Lordships' House as of right, or by birth, or by appointment; I was elected. I was elected as a Scottish representative Peer by my fellow Scottish Peers to become a Member of your Lordships' House in 1955. After that, I came up for election and was re-elected each time there was a new Parliament. That went on until 1963, when all Scottish Peers were given the same rights as United Kingdom Peers.
I suggest that if there is a desire to cut down the number of Conservative hereditary Peers who can vote, then a certain number should be elected by their fellow Conservative Peers—something similar to the way in which Scottish representative Peers were elected. It should not be outwith the wit of the various Leaders in this House to agree on what that number should be. The Conservative hereditary Peers elected would sit and vote in your Lordships' House until such time as there was a new Parliament, and then another election would be held. Those Conservative hereditary Peers who were not elected and were thus denied the vote, could still sit and speak. That is crucial; that would be important as, with the election of Conservative hereditary Peers each new Parliament, it would give the electors a chance to judge the merit of those standing for election.

1041
To begin with only Conservative hereditary Peers would have to stand for election. But if other parties increased their numbers of hereditary Peers, they too would have to hold elections to decide who should have voting rights. By that method a certain number of hereditary Peers would be elected and given voting rights, making the House more democratic while at the same time involving the minimum constitutional upheaval. That aspect is of considerable importance.
The working of this House has evolved over a great many years. It is respected for doing an excellent job. It would be an act of extreme folly to reform this House under the guise of modernisation and run the risk of ending up with a House that does not work so well. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, when he comes to speak for Her Majesty's Government, will look on my suggestion as being constructive and thereby accord it due consideration.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I have said it once, I have said it twice, and,
"What I tell you three times is true".
The White Paper appears to be very short of argument. It says everything three times, just as the Bellman did, who was as likely to find the snark as the Government are to reach a successful and agreed reform.
We are told that the new Chamber will be more democratic and effective when reformed. Yet that surely implies that it will be more powerful. That is something that will certainly be unacceptable to another place. As my noble and learned friend Lord Howe said, at the moment our lack of power is our strength. Having almost no power we can speak and vote as we deem right regardless of our party. The Government will be well aware of the number of times that the Tory dominated House voted against the last government.
If the House were to be more powerful, paradoxically it would make it a weaker Chamber for then there would be a duty on every Peer to toe the line of the Whip rather than speak his mind and vote accordingly. It is precisely because we cannot claim democratic and selective legitimacy that we are free to vote as our consciences dictate. There are many occasions when Members of the other place vote against their personal inclinations in order to obey the Whip. But in this House that does not happen if people feel strongly about a matter.
Once the hereditaries have gone, the country will be scoured for people to fill the Benches. Many will be appointed as an honour for the success of their career or public work. But for many others it will simply be a matter of filling the Benches and the highest honour of the country—elevation to the peerage—may be earned by no more than standing unopposed in an election. That surely debases the honour of the peerage for those who achieved it through a lifetime of service. Without the hereditary Peers it would be wrong to call the new Chamber the "House of Lords"; it would create confusion. Lords without seats would continue to be briefed by petitioners, for how would the public know who had and who had not got a seat?
1042
Therefore, the new House should be called the Senate and new Members called senators. Life Peers would be automatic Members and maintain their titles as well as being senators. But senators would only be elevated to become Peers, as opposed to senators. if they deserved the honour. The new Chamber should also lose all the trappings of the Lords. It is sad to lose 1,000 years' history of tradition, but, as we saw at the opening of Parliament, tradition seems a dirty word.
There is no proposal by the Government on what is to replace the Lords. It has to be a Chamber based either on selection or election. The Royal Commission is meant to report by December. It is unlikely to do so, if it ever does produce an agreed report. The problem with any form of election is that politics would immediately rear its head and very soon the House would become a sort of political bear garden, which characterises the other place and many local authority chambers. The traditional calm, objective debate of the Lords will have been lost. Mature statesmen would be increasingly disenchanted to attend the shouting match.
Once the new House has a legitimacy by election or appointment, the Commons know jolly well that their own supremacy will be challenged. That was ably set out by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. That will make stage two impossible. That is why stage one has to come before stage two; namely, stage two will never happen. Just as past efforts have failed, so will this one. On the one hand the Government want a more effective Chamber; on the other hand, they want one with no more power. Those are two conflicting requirements.
If there was an adequate solution, the Government would have had no fear in having the two stages together. As much as the other place wants to get rid of the hereditaries, there is almost no alternative that they would accept. If there was, they would have suggested it already.
There is only one way round this. That is to have the "sunset clause". If stage two is not agreed by a certain date, the hereditaries should resume their seats. That is the only threat that would galvanise the other place to agree a stage two. Such a clause would help the Government achieve their aim.
There is then the question of whether Members should be full-time or part-time. One of the accepted great strengths of the present House is the number of experts on almost any subject who come when they can give invaluable and first-hand advice to the House. To have a fund of experts on whom to call yet who cannot interfere on political balance is an almost ideal system and should be preserved, as recommended in countless letters to The Times, including one from the noble Earl., Lord Longford. It would be much better if they were allowed to speak, if not to vote. The country will be a loser without them. Full-time Members would be far more inclined gradually to demand power from the other place. It would be a great disservice to the country to make it a full-time job.
I turn to the proposal for an age limit. One of the greatest strengths of the House is that so many Members have lost the political fire of their youth and have settled down to more mature and pragmatic political views;

1043
hence the lack of shouting at each other, and the more mature debate. Are the Government really saying that once over the age of 75, Peers are past it? It is well known that some of the wisest and greatest contributors to the House are not only those Peers over the age of 75 but those over the age of 85. We can all think of names to prove that fact. Those Peers who are beyond making sense just stay away.
It would also be wrong to have Members for set terms of years as they would always be looking over their shoulders to ensure reappointment or re-election. At present we can say what we believe to be right, regardless of how popular that may be. We may be ignored or have to answer an interjection from another Peer or to our national or local press. We would look pretty silly if we got it wrong. We try to take care not to, but we can fight for our views to the death without fear of being ousted from the House. People who work hard until retirement can only then spare the time to attend. But then they have a huge resource of knowledge to give to the country well beyond their 75th birthday.
Regional representation is another matter raised in the White Paper. The appointment of a regional representative would bring in a lot of Bugginses from the councils. These political animals are not the people to fill the second Chamber. Far better are those who can speak with little political axe to grind and with a lifetime of experience of the subject on which they are speaking. Selection, however, must take account of the need for Members from across the country.
Few people outside the House criticise or give a fig either way for the hereditaries. The postbags of Members of Parliament show little public interest in reform. However, 68 per cent. of people polled want to leave things as they are until details of a new House are known. Many commentators say that it is the Commons that should be reformed, at least as well as the Lords.
It is essential that any reform should be for the better. It seems that change is being made for change's sake. What comes out, in poll after poll, is that the electorate want to know what they are getting before they see the present system dissolved. It is quite extraordinary and thoroughly irresponsible that a constitution should be destroyed before a replacement is planned.
8.55 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, at the age of 87, I may have been caught napping if I have only heard four or five of my noble friends make points which I want to stress. I refer to the speeches of my noble friends Lord Waddington, Lord Lamont, Lord Moran, Lord Naseby and Lord Glenarthur.
I make no apology for referring to the point to which they alluded. It is that your Lordships enjoy one particular power—and only one—in this House. That is to decide whether or not to veto—I stress the word "veto"—any proposal from the other place to delay the forthcoming general election; in other words, to suspend the quinquennial Act which can only be amended for a year at a time.
1044
Although we meet tonight under the chairmanship of an unelected Peer on the Woolsack, we are discussing a White Paper which, at heart, is about the processes and procedures of democracy. The Salisbury convention is strictly irrelevant, if only because the Labour manifesto promised that the legislative power of the House of Lords would remain unaltered. That is, directly and by implication, just what the White Paper proposes. We are told in it that it might be reasonable to reduce the theoretically available powers of this House rather than leave them as they stand. Although under the quinquennial Act delays could only be for a year at a time, the fact is that your Lordships can block any endeavour to amend that Act and have an absolute veto. In other words, this House is the sole and absolute guarantee of general elections being held every five years. So far, the question has only arisen twice—in wartime—and on both those occasions your Lordships concurred with the other place.
This White Paper is a loose and disparate collection of rather undergraduate essays strung together without much of a coherent theme. It even goes so far as to contradict itself. In the middle of page 36 we read that,
"the Government must ultimately have the right to secure any of its legislation... with the consent of the Commons alone"—
but, wait for it—
"except for a Bill to extend the life of a Parliament".
However, having made that genuflection, if I can put it in that way, to constitutional decency, the reservation is firmly negatived in paragraph 7(26) to which tonight's amendment wisely refers. That paragraph states that the available powers of this House might, if the Wakeham Commission says so, be significantly reduced.
The point to which the amendment specifically refers is the power of this House. We are told that "independence" is the character most eagerly sought among the Peers of tomorrow who are to be chosen by an appointments commission, itself "independent". But by whom would they be named? Who else but by the Prime Minister? The same applies to the commission's nominees.
Total disregard for the constitution, as we know it, is clear. I cite two points. First, the Commons, according to paragraph 5 on page 24, is to have the "final say" on any Bill. The phrasing omits any qualifying exclusion about amendments of the quinquennial Act. Secondly, we are told that hereditary Peers are invariably Conservative. That is sheer nonsense. For example, three out of every four Cross-Bench Peers are hereditary Peers but they sit as independents, free from any party ties. The noble Lord, Lord Richard. said at col. 1804 on 19th May 1993 that the Lords is,
"effectively the only place in which the legislature can curb the power of the executive".
Most damning are the Wakeham commission's terms of reference: to consider both the role and the function of the second Chamber. In other words, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, may well review one guarantee. I refer to the fact that there will be an election every five years. So, we are offered a second Chamber, gathered by an appointments commission, itself chosen by the Prime Minister, yet still labelled as "politically independent".

1045
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, told the Dimbleby programme on 24th January that a referendum had not been ruled out, nor, in view of the Welsh referendum turnout, were we told what majority would be needed if there were a referendum. The noble Baroness also left two points unanswered the other day. The noble Viscount., Lord Cranborne, had asked about the "pivotal" question of relations between the two Houses. The noble Baroness ducked that issue when, on 24th January, she told the Dimbleby programme that the,
"Government were not to open up the rather difficult area of `powers' because that might lead to a free-flowing discussion"—
that is the last thing they want—
"about the powers of Parliament which are not established anywhere in our unwritten constitution".
The ambiguity of that answer is frightening and, of itself, is an argument in support of my noble friend's amendment.
Your Lordships have a duty to scrutinise the Government on every detail of this matter and must expose any evasion of the charge that they, as a government, seek and mean to keep the power that they already enjoy.
I do not know whether it is proper to repeat the quotation given earlier by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur:
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
I hope that my noble friends on this side of the House and those on the Cross-Benches will rally to support my noble friend's amendment.
9.3 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity, as a new life Peer, to contribute to the debate on the future of this House. In the short time that I have been a Member of this House, it has become clear to me that, as presently constituted, an extraordinary breadth of talent, skills and experience resonates in this House; a powerful resource which I defy any Chamber in any legislature anywhere to match. Indeed, I have noticed that your Lordships make little distinction between those who have been here JO minutes and those who have been here 200 years—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I pay tribute to all those here who happen to have hereditary titles for their enormous and largely unsung contribution to our great debates and to the stability of our parliamentary process.
However, I think that we all recognise that the time has come for reform, but not reform at any price. There has been a very obvious growth in the class of career politician in our public life. I for one would not want to see that happen here.
I welcome the establishment of the Royal Commission, to be chaired by my very distinguished noble friend Lord Wakeham, and I regret that the Government did not set it up as soon as they came to power.
1046
That said, I wish that I could say that I welcome the contents of the White Paper. Unfortunately, its title alone signals the Government's preference for masking their true purpose. I repeat the question put by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in his address at the commencement of the debate: "Modernising Parliament"—what does "modernising" mean? Even my laptop, provided courtesy of this House, does not want to recognise the word "modernising". A red light flashes every time I attempt to type it!
Whatever it means, are the Government planning to modernise the House of Commons as well? After all, one does not have a properly balanced legislature without the other. I am aware that a committee in the House of Commons is currently reviewing the practices and procedures of that House. That must be good. However, it simply does not compare with hacking at our constitution in your Lordships' House. Can "modernising" mean anything we like as long as it sounds good and a touch newsworthy?
How can we decide who should be here (or not) before working out what a so-called "modernised" Parliament is supposed to do? To put it another way, is it not rather amateurish—indeed, entirely odd—to be considering the applicant for the job before the job description has been drafted? Is this an example of the "better government" to which the noble Baroness the Leader of the House referred in her Statement about the White Paper on 20th January? I sincerely hope not.
Clearly, the Government seem to be interested in reforming this place only in order to throw out a certain group of people. That is their prerogative, but we must guard against the effects on our relationship with the House of Commons in the so-called brave, new, modern world which this Government are creating for us.
Faced with this overtly half-baked approach to "modernising", which I presume is supposed to mean "reforming", I now return to just some of the proposals in the White Paper—proposals which I believe are fundamentally flawed. In particular, I note:
"Central to the future House of' Lords is its composition".
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House made it clear in her Statement to which I have already referred that the Government wish to make the House of Lords more representative of today's Britain and nominations from many sources will extend the range of interests and types of people represented in the House.
The White Paper takes this further by reference to the likelihood that it will include more younger people, more women and more ethnic minorities. This all sounds very good in principle—and very newsworthy. However, while clearly favouring a largely nominated element, the White Paper also makes it very clear that elected Peers would be paid salaries and nominees would not. My response to that is: why not? As a mother with three young children to be properly cared for, I can confirm that being a Member of this House is a very expensive privilege and one which I would guess fewer than 0.1 per cent. of the population of Britain today could afford.

1047
One of the complaints of those who wish to oust the hereditary Peers is that a proportion of them do not regularly attend or only turn up to vote. The truth, if I may suggest it, is that many of them are out there earning a living in the hope that they may attend and do their duty if and when their finances and their responsibilities allow. The same would be the case for the overwhelming majority of Peers who might come to this House post reform. It is entirely unrealistic—indeed extraordinarily naïve—to expect to call upon people from all walks of life to drop everything to be here without an income. In short, my response to this so called "modernisation" to "get better government" is: "get real".
In truth, the Government cannot honestly pretend that they really want to extend the range of representation with warm words on young people, women and ethnic minorities when only a small and elite minority could afford to be here. I believe that it is reasonable to ask whether this clear inconsistency is, in fact, all part of the building blocks for the Prime Minister's loyal yes-men and women who are prepared to pay up and shut up.
That question brings me to another related aspect of the White Paper. We do not know what role this House will play in the governing of Britain for the medium to long term. What we do know, by their actions, is that this Government are increasingly ignoring, indeed bypassing, Parliament in favour of the Executive and the media. Even our Prime Minister treats Parliament as an irritant. It is rather telling that the "Brit Awards" ceremony last week was of more importance to our Ministers than the future of this House. This blatant trend tells me that, whatever the future holds, it is the Government's intention to diminish the powers and standing of this House. What then?
The White Paper talks, almost excitedly, about developing the role of the working Peer. Men and women of calibre who are succeeding in their chosen path in the world outside are not going to compromise their lives to come to a House which is left with no teeth and no standing. What would be the point? It is also notable that, in the Statement which I mentioned earlier, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that while hereditary Peers will be given the right to stand as candidates for election to the House of Commons, there will be no change in the position of life Peers. Life Peers will be unable to disclaim their titles. Why? Do this Government fear a mass exodus of life Peers to the House of Commons, once all the teeth of this House have been removed? I think we should be told.
It is abundantly clear, upon even a cursory reading of the White Paper, that this Government's intentions are, at best, ill thought through and, at worst, poorly disguised—and that the White Paper's content bears little relation to the practicalities of reforming so important an institution as this House. More than that, it highlights the very real dangers which the Royal Commission faces in its remit to change for ever an institution which plays a fundamental part in our United Kingdom, an institution which is a much loved part of our heritage.
1048
Reform cannot be properly considered in isolation. It begs the question: does modernisation mean fundamental change to the workings of this House? The whole process thus far, with its often casual references to reform with words like "radical" and "modern", has created a profound and uncomfortable climate of uncertainty for all who work in the House, in whatever capacity. I believe that it is now time for this Government to assure them that their future here is secure.
I wish the members of the Royal Commission well in their unenviable task and simply urge them to consider the future of this House in the context of its effects upon Parliament as a whole.
In conclusion, a hitherto inviolate cornerstone of our democracy—the check upon an elective dictatorship—is now at risk. It is our paramount duty to protect that element through this period of reform. That fundamental change to the British constitution should be taking place first by piecemeal devolution and now by piecemeal reform of our legislature is lamentable. We accept change that destabilises and diminishes for ever our United Kingdom at our peril.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, the noble Baroness used my name during the course of her speech. Would she be kind enough to tell the House whether she believes the House of Lords should be reformed at all?
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I think I made it clear that now is the time for reform and that we must have reform. However, I do not believe that it has been properly considered in the White Paper. I believe that the composition of this House is absolutely crucial, but you cannot decide upon the composition until you have decided what the people here are supposed to be doing. That was the main point of my speech.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, lest we forget some of the more spiritual matters of this House, I remind your Lordships that today is the feast of St. Polycarp, one of the oldest saints of all. If I recall, he was burned, but the fire would not consume him because his belief was so strong. He had to be put down by the executioner with a knife. Today is also the feast of St. Lazarus, who I believe tried hard to restore religious artefacts and works of art, for which he was condemned to death by heretics. But he was saved and honoured.
The only reason I know this is because 36 years ago today I received a formal telegram confirming the death of my father at sea. Therefore I have been a Peer for some 36 years. But that was not something I wanted to be; it occurred not by accident of birth, but by accident of death. Had my father survived, he would have been like the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, who was head of house at Winchester a year after my father, and I would never have come here and probably would never have had to suffer as I did in the beginning.
I have believed in reform from the moment I had to come here. I did not know that I had to come here. I did not want to change my name from Malcom

1049
Mitchell-Thomson. I was frightened. I did not know how to get here. Then I was told that you turned up. I turned up at what I now know is St. Stephens. I told a nice man that I wanted to go to the House of Lords. He said, "If you wait a moment, there will be a group going round shortly". I went on a tour and thank goodness I did because the staff were helpful. The Palace servants explained what I should do. They said, "Surely you must know someone". I replied, "No, actually I do not know any Peers, and anyway I am too young". I was 25 years old. A nice person I thought I had seen or knew sat me down and said, "Don't worry. You have the experience of youth". Immediately I felt important. He continued, "We are a bunch of old geriatrics and we need someone young. Please come".
I went back to my job with Universal Asbestos at Watford. My boss there said, "I expect you will not come here any more. You will go to the House of Lords and manage your estates". I did not like to tell him that we did not have any estates. I said I thought that I would have to attend the House of Lords sometimes. He replied, "Bear in mind we do not carry passengers here". I felt very put out indeed. I wanted this place to be reformed. I came and sat on the Back Benches. I was terrified at the prospect of taking my seat. I discovered that I did not have a Writ because I am one of those strange people who has an English barony registered in Scotland. When I went to the College of Arms they said, "You are not with us. You are with the Lyon". I had never heard of the Lyon but I had to go to Edinburgh and find right reverend Prelates to prove that my mother and father were bachelor and spinster at the time of their marriage and that I was therefore legitimate. When you are young this causes you angst. It makes me feel anxious now even to think about it.
However, the people here were so nice to me. They told me to speak only on a subject I knew about. They told me to be careful of the people called Whips. They said that the Whips would try to make me do things that I probably should not do. They also said, "You should be independent. You probably are Conservative although your uncle was Stafford Cripps and your father was on the other side". I could go to any side of the House. However, I was told that it was my duty to come to the House to contribute as I had sworn an oath.
I did not know much about anything but I am grateful to this House for what it has taught me through coming to listen to people. I have learnt more here than throughout the rest of my life, and I appreciate that. I am not a hereditary Peer; I am a Baron. There are Marquesses, Dukes and Earls. I do not like the term "hereditary Peer", but I like the idea of reform.
I suppose that I have to declare an interest—and I did not want to do this. Unfortunately I then became a director of a research company. Back in those early days, we did the research for the Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Wilson, on the reform of the House of Lords. As your Lordships know, his government were a little worried. They said, "We need to get rid of them because they are blocking everything on Zimbabwe"— Rhodesia. So the Bill was introduced. There was a White Paper, and, if I recall correctly, there was a
1050
majority of 195 in the debate on the Motion in the House of Lords in favour of reform, and a majority of 111 in the House of Commons.
The interesting thing about doing research for political parties is that if they do not pay you the research belongs to you. So I scratched through my files, through all the Hollerith cards, and I have revitalised it all. As it is beyond the 30-year rule, I would like to publish it. I have given it an appropriate title—Towards a Peerless Future. I reactivated many of my research colleagues because I believe that one of the problem. s we are facing is lack of knowledge and information.
Are the 94 people speaking in the debate representative of the House of Lords? Your Lordships may be interested to know that the average age of those who have spoken or will speak is exactly 64. It upsets me; I have been trying to get up to the average age for 36 years, and I cannot make it. About 16 per cent. of Peers have been here for less than five years; 50 per cent. have been here for between five and 20 years; the remainder have been here for more than 20 years. I belong to one of that happy gang of about 16 per cent.—the same percentage as those who have been here for less than five years—who have been here for 36 years. I still wonder why. I did not want to come here in the first place, but now I do not really want to go.
I was taught that it was my duty to attend. I actually swore an oath. I was more frightened of that oath than of the Official Secrets Act when, over 20 years, I held unpaid Government appointments—because socialist governments always appoint chinless wonders, hereditary, merchant banking Peers, to useless bodies, where you are unpaid.
I also suffered because I did not like to do what the Whips told me to do. I do not like the idea of two-line Whips and things like that, and so I would never accept them. I invented the "Selsdon Convention". When my noble friend Lord Denham sent me something with two black lines, I used to "Snowpake" one line out and say that I have only ever taken a one-line Whip. I have voted against governments. When I find that I do not want to be Whipped, I am conveniently absent.
At the moment I am conveniently absent for five days a week because I have a job. As my noble friend Lady Buscombe has just pointed out, one of the problems of having a job is that you have to balance everything. Your bosses say, "It is us or the House of Lords, or the Government". They think that we are all wealthy here, but those of us who work in the sort of job I had have to come to an agreement with our employers. We work a 40-hour week for them and the rest of the time is free. It is quite difficult to create a balance. It is difficult to gain expertise solely within the House, so we have to gain it from outside.
As I see the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I cannot resist saying something about his students. When he came here, they did not see quite so much of him. I thought it was rather charming when they used to say "Yes, we see him at the beginning of the term and the end of term, and quite a lot on television". I have learned a lot from him, and I respected his speech today.

1051
But I do not intend to resign: I think we should all resign and stand for re-election. We should look at the Companies Act and look at who our shareholders are.
As part of my plan, over the past few years I have talked to 53 foreign governments, including some Commonwealth governments, although I have not got round to them all yet. We have not consulted with many Commonwealth countries, but they feel very strongly about the Queen and about this House. Most of their governments feel that this is one of the bodies that can stop the overturn of democracy. I say no more, but watch this space. I am also trying to produce a CD-Rom and I am being trained by PVDN so that I can communicate with all our constituents worldwide. Twenty-five per cent. of the population of the world are members of the British Commonwealth. I am too.
I hope that we will enjoy the next few months. I wanted to sit on the Labour Benches today because I thought they were so under-supported; they have no one speaking.
Lord Hacking: Come over!
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, we could all go over and then we would not have a problem of division—but we would not vote for them.
I leave it at that. It has been a pleasure to be here today.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Nunburnholme: My Lords, that is a hard act to follow! Everyone in the Chamber knows exactly what is going on so I will not elucidate further. The previous four speakers were excellent examples of knowing what is going on.
Not so long ago I wrote a short tome on the three-pronged attack on democracy; the closed list, which has now been effected; hereditary Peers, which we are discussing today; and the single currency, which we shall discuss a great deal more in the future—you can bet on that! It is happening every week. There were the Wool reforms on civil litigation and the 1995 practice direction. There is the business about Wales and All Michael. The Brown shirts came out for that one!
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships—I am sure I do not need to—that the monarch does not rule by divine right. Neither do the Commons rule by divine right. Nor does No. 10 Downing Street rule by divine right. There is only one institution that does rule by divine right. That is common law and the will of the people. If the present Government press on with the single currency, the people of this nation will never forgive them or never forget.
I played backgammon in Turkey for a full month. On one occasion I actually lifted a game off a Turkish gentleman who spoke good English. He reached back for his glass of tea and said, "Ah, do you know that in Turkey we have a saying about the English? If you spit in an Englishman's eye, he will smile; if you spit in his eye a second time, he will say thank-you; if you spit in
1052
his eye a third time, he will kill you". With a very large majority and the arrogance of the present Government, we are seeing the demise of the socialist party.
Pray continue.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the evening is drawing on and I hope it will encourage your Lordships to know that if anyone is interested in my thoughts on the way to take forward reform of the second Chamber, I shared them with your Lordships in the autumn of last year. I have no intention of re-visiting them this evening.
Any parliamentary Chamber's activities are determined by its composition, its powers and its functions, and their inter-relationship. A great deal of the debate over the past two days has focused on composition. I wish to comment mostly on functions and powers. In particular, I want to juxtapose some of the contents of the White Paper with the Prime Minister's comment in his introduction that what the White Paper proposes is a "radical and historic task". I do not doubt its historic significance. It is the epithet "radical" I question.
At page 3 of the White Paper it is stated that the removal of hereditary Peers is,
"a real change in the way Britain is governed".
That, my Lords, is an ambitious claim which I suggest is not fully supported by the facts.
Not only is Britain not governed by the hereditary peerage; it is not even governed by the House of Lords, which contains, of course, a large number of hereditary Peers. It is governed by Parliament as a whole. As those of us who were involved in the debates and votes on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill know, it is the other place which governs this country. It did so before the tabling of the Bill that is currently before the other place, and it will do so after that Bill is on the statute book.
No change is being made to the way in which the powers and functions of this House work; merely its composition is to be changed, which will of course affect the way in which it operates. But something similar happens in the other place at every general election. On those occasions the Government may change, but the way of government is unchanging.
The composition of this House is being treated like the workforce of a business that has been newly taken over. The new boss has decided to get rid of many of the workers on what might be described as a "first in, first out" basis. Apart from that, there is to be no change to the system. Things will go on in much the same way as before. Whether the composition, and for that matter the functions and purposes, of the second Chamber of Parliament should be changed in such a manner by those who for the time being are in control of the first Chamber is a matter which might be for consideration by the Royal Commission. Should the composition of a House of Parliament, its functions and powers be constitutionally entrenched against change by simple majority of another place?

1053
The Government have decided that they want the so-and-so's out. I almost used another, vernacular word in this context but then realised that it would be technically inaccurate in the case of hereditary Peers. It is hardly very noble, but it is a recognisable and precedented exercise of naked power. We have seen it before and we shall no doubt see it plenty of times again. I am not only talking about this country.
There is a whole range of political consequences. The Government know that and appreciate that they must deal with them ex post facto. That is why phase two has been put in place, to address those problems. But the problem about phase two is that the Government do not know what they want to do. It is clearly true that they wish to see minimal change to the way in which Parliament as a whole works. Hence they have established a Royal Commission to help them achieve just that. After all, why are the terms of reference of the Royal Commission so circumscribed? It is specifically stated that there is a "need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent Chamber of the realm." Why is there such a need? What is the evidence? If it is such an overridingly sensible conclusion, why cannot the Royal Commission be relied upon to reach that conclusion? If it cannot be relied upon to reach it, why are its deliberations to be relied upon in other respects?
Given that it is generally accepted on all sides that phase two is likely to set the form of the House of Lords or whatever the second Chamber may be called for many years to come, surely, as my noble friend Lord Norton pointed out yesterday, we should look at the workings of second chambers elsewhere, both inside and outside the common law tradition, to see whether there is anything useful to be learnt from them. Surely our arrangements here are not, in the words of the great Lord Brougham, the Lord Chancellor at the time of the great Reform Bill, incapable of improvement. Why is the Royal Commission expressly forbidden to seek after truth?
While I am sure that the publicly expressed wish to get phase two through expeditiously plays a part in this, surely the real reason is that the cabal which directs the party opposite and the Government is predominantly composed of Members of another place. As any Member of this House who has been a Minister knows, it is cabals in the other place that direct government policy. Obviously, those people love the pre-eminence of the other place and cherish it jealously, with all the emotional affection of the longest serving Member of this House. But surely that is a good reason in itself for asking the Royal Commission to examine the near closed shop which the House of Commons locks on government.
One of the great benefits and uses of this House is that it is a door through which any citizen can go if the government of the day wishes him or her to be part of the administration. In that context one has only to think of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lords. Lord Simon and Lord Macdonald, each of whom could not be a member of the Government if this opening were not available.
1054
Given our system, where a member of the Government must become a Member of Parliament, if one adopts the line argued by the right honourable Member for Chesterfield and others that all members of the Government must be Members of the House of Commons, one limits the pool from which the Government can be called to something like 400 people out of a nation of more than 50 million. That I consider to be absolutely ludicrous.
It is my view that the Government might well be improved if more Members of this House were members of the Government. I suggest that the Royal Commission should consider whether Members of this place could speak for the Government on the Front Bench in the other place and vice versa.
I return to the main thrust of my remarks which is that under a description of radical modernisation the Government's plans for changes in the Parliament here at Westminster guarantee that there will be no discussion of the merits or disadvantages of radical change. In many ways they will deliberately ensure a minimum of substantive change in the future functions and powers of Parliament.
In both phase one and phase two we see no genuine radicalism, despite the brave words of the White Paper. The real question for the Government is not to criticise their radical plans, it is to question their self-proclaimed radical credentials. The question is: if the Government's plans are so radical, why are they so timid in their thoughts and intentions? In short, why are they so conservative?
9.35 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, as the 80th speaker in the debate, I do not intend to weary your Lordships with my own views on the details of the White Paper. Its inconsistencies have already been well exposed by previous speakers. However, I add my voice to the many others before me who found it bizarre that the Government's White Paper stated its intention to increase the legitimacy of a reformed Chamber, but then went on to suggest reducing its powers. A so-called more legitimate House should surely have more powers, not fewer. I would also not be alone in saying that if I hear the word "modernisation" again I think I shall scream.
I have three specific points to raise which flow from the White Paper and its consequences. When the Government get their way and the hereditary Peers are kicked out—the "affronts to democracy", as the Prime Minister calls us—there will remain a House of about 482 life Peers. According to the figures produced by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, last year during the debate in this House in October, over half those Peers are aged 70 or more. Further, of those 482 Peers only about half turn up.
We do not yet know whether the mooted 91 affronts to democracy, as proposed by the Weatherill amendment, will be part of the interim Chamber. Are the Government satisfied that the business of the House will be able to be carried out effectively during the period between stages one and two? I am thinking of

1055
the Deputy Chairmen of Committees, the European Communities Committee and its sub-committees and several other committees of your Lordships' House. For example, the European Select Committee on which I have the honour to serve has eight hereditary Peers among its members. The agriculture and fisheries sub-committee has seven hereditaries out of its 11 members. At my count—and I stand to be corrected—the various committees of this House are well served by 67 of those affronts to democracy.
Are the Government able to give the House the assurance that the work done by the committees which is widely acknowledged to be of some value will be carried out to the same standards by a House much reduced in numbers and which may last for much longer than the Government envisage at the moment?
I mentioned agriculture and fisheries. It brings me to the second point I wish to raise. When the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, introduced the White Paper on 20th January this year—and it is repeated in the White Paper—she said that 60 per cent. of hereditary Peers have some connection with the land. It follows, therefore, that when they go that interest will go with them. Twenty-three per cent. of the population live and work in rural areas, 30 per cent. of the national gross domestic product is produced in those areas and a large number of jobs depend on them. I hope that the Royal Commission will put the necessary pressure on the Government to ensure that the rural constituency in the United Kingdom will be properly represented in this House, whatever its eventual composition. This cannot be left to another place which is predominantly urban in outlook. The countryside and the rural economy are under pressure as never before and their voice must be heard.
Finally, I should like to suggest to my noble friend Lord Wakeham and his Royal Commission that they examine a system of party Whips. Yesterday I was encouraged by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, and today by the speech of my noble friend Lord Selsdon who shares some reservations on this matter. At this point I part company with my noble friend Lord Jopling who dealt with this matter yesterday. He prefaced his remarks by saying:
"I am the third former Chief Whip to speak and I hope that I am not seen to be making a plea from the 'Chief Whips' mafia'."— [Official Report, 22/2/99; col. 872.]
He then went on to make a case for serial flagellation. I speak as a victim of whipping during the debate on the Maastricht Treaty. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, reminded us of those events, in particular the question of a referendum on that unfortunate treaty. Those of us who supported a referendum were opposed most effectively not so much by reasoned debate as by ruthless whipping by both the Labour Party and by my noble friend Lord Hesketh on behalf of the then government. His final duty was to make sure that the whipped ones went into the voting Lobby of his choice rather than one of your Lordships' cloakrooms. The vote on this matter was lost but I believe that the argument
1056
was won, as some months later both the Conservative and Labour Parties found that they would after all have a referendum on economic and monetary union.
As a "whipee" (if that is the correct word to use) my experience was no happier. I expected to be telephoned at any moment by the Whips Office. It never happened. I waited for the call and it never came. However, one day I received a fax headed, "Top Priority. Urgent. Your immediate attendance is required in the House of Lords without failure". I ignored this and carried on castrating pigs, filling in my IACS forms, or whatever else I was doing at the time. I later telephoned that day to find out whether the Government had fallen or some other calamity had occurred only to be told by an uninterested voice on the other end of the telephone that there had been no vote on the matter at all.
I believe that whipping diminishes Parliament in the eyes of the public. If this reformed House is to be a real and legitimate check on the Executive, of whatever political hue, then the party Whip should have no place in it. Measures that are proposed in Bills should stand or fall on their merits. Both my noble friend Lord Cranborne and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that this House would become more party political after the reforms proposed in the White Paper. If so, the Royal Commission should be aware of the dangers and will, I hope, guarantee that the second Chamber will be both legitimate and independent. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde is a first step towards this desired goal and I support it. If it comes to a vote I shall vote for it.
9.43 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, the White Paper, although very repetitive, makes a convincing case for ending the hereditary principle in Parliament though a bad case for splitting House of Lords reform into two steps. As one of the most junior of the hereditary Peers—I am No. 729 out of the 759—whose peerage dates from the twilight period of 1960, and as only a later arrival in your Lordships' House, I am particularly aware of my good fortune at being here, but I cannot in truth justify it. However hard the present House of Lords may seek to fulfill its functions, however high the standards of debate, however conscientious its membership and however admirable its amateur unpaid status, it is inherently impeded by its preservation of the historical anachronism of hereditary legislators.
In respect of stage one, I should like to make one point that was touched upon yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Denham. The Government could have confined their measure to all Peers who sit by virtue of inheritance. It is not necessary for this purpose to extrude also hereditary Peers of first creation. Earlier proposals for House of Lords reform did not go so far.
The White Paper does not propose the abolition of that part of the peerage which is hereditary. It is perfectly possible, although unlikely, that hereditary peerages might still be created in the future. I do not see why anyone so honoured should not sit with life Peers in the House of Lords. Why is that being prevented? Perhaps because it was tempting to cut the link now that

1057
there are so few living hereditary Peers of first creation, or perhaps it was to prevent future Royal Peers from sitting. If the latter, it is superfluous since, as I see it, the monarchy is already sufficiently distanced from the peerage riot to be affected simply by the exclusion of hereditary Peers. It stands by itself, as do the seven other constitutional monarchies of Europe. Paradoxically, one of its most enduring strengths is that it is not so rigidly bound to the strict rules of heredity, since the Royal succession ultimately depends on acceptance of the Sovereign by Parliament, as has been made clear on several famous occasions in our history, most recently in our own times in 1936.
This debate provides a welcome opportunity for those of us who may not be here after the end of the present Session to speak about what the White Paper suggests beyond stage one. It contains several encouraging features. First, and most basically, the Government firmly endorse the need for a bicameral Parliament, something about which the Labour Party used to waver in the wobbly days of Michael Foot. Secondly, in the face of public concern about their commitment to further reform, a Royal Commission will produce proposals and an ambitious timetable is set for the Government to declare their policy before the next general election. Thirdly, the scandal of Prime Ministerial patronage, which has continued seamlessly from the era of hereditary peerages into the era of life peerages, is to be significantly mitigated in the transitional House by the Appointments Commission and the Scrutiny Committee.
And yet, despite these assurances, doubts must remain about what will actually happen, given the entrenched interests of the House of Commons and of the Crown-in-Parliament in confining the status and powers of the second Chamber. A stage two reform might simply prove too contentious or be set aside in the face of unforeseeable political events. Anyway, the timetable seems impossibly tight. The transitional House might become the permanent House, always susceptible to being packed in the final resort, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has so eloquently reminded us. Alternatively, and at the other extreme, if the Government attempt to rush through stage two, it might not last long during the impending century, in which there might be stages three, four and five as the unwritten British constitution is still further manipulated.
It is most regrettable that the Government are pushing forward their reform in this way when they could well have done so by consensus, finding, as they have, an easier quarry in the ermine-mantled Peers than they did in the pink-coated fox-hunters. Today's hereditary Peers are no diehards. They are altogether different from the proud aristocrats of past centuries. This was proved in the events of 1968 when the House of Lords voted five to one in favour of the White Paper on reform. At that time the hereditary Peers far outnumbered the life Peers and yet they voted for the end of the hereditary principle in Parliament even though the two-Writ system provided some temporary relief.
It is, of course, true that the 1968 White Paper proposed significant reductions in the powers of the House of Lords. The reformed House would have been
1058
confined to only a six-month delay in the passage of an ordinary Bill and the power of final rejection of subordinate legislation was removed. However, many things have changed in the past 30 years and in particular the powers of the Executive have been greatly enhanced—a tendency which is as much Thatcherite as it is Blairite. The weakness of the House of Commons is obvious with the control by the party machines of their candidates as well as the dominance of the fourth estate in all aspects of public life.
Therefore, I applaud the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for having tabled tabling his amendment which, if he moves it, I shall certainly support. The powers of this House, though they must remain subordinate to the other place, should be strong and meaningful and, whatever they are, they should be used.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Morris: Many noble Lords here tonight may believe that after 80 Members have spoken there must be little left of the White Paper to debate. That is true, not least because my noble friend Lord Norton of south and many others quite brilliantly shredded the White Paper with the skill of a Chinese chef shredding a cabbage. There is nothing left of it.
I have listened to every speech I possibly could and I have read all the speeches which were made yesterday and I am provoked into speaking by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I was reminded of a saying of Somerset Maugham, to the effect that just because a man is inarticulate it does not mean to say that he is stupid. The corollary interests me more: that just because a man is articulate does not mean to say that he is intelligent. I was not too pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and other noble Lords continually refer to this Chamber as the second House. Noble Lords will know that in Tudor times in the ceremony of prorogation, it was referred to as the Higher House. In more modern times it was referred to as the Upper House. If anything, it is the first House of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, also suggested that if the House of Lords were to be properly reformed it might be the second most important institution in the realm. I would have thought. that he, as a lawyer, would know that the first estate of the realm is the Crown, the second is the Church, the third is Parliament — which means both Houses of Parliament — and the fourth estate is the free press.
I shall leave your Lordships with a quotation from the same period of history as the quotation made by the, noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. It is an observation in the third chapter of Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and it has high relevance to this debate. It is a fearful, fearful warning and it is worth remembering that the first democracy which the world experienced, the city state of Athens, lasted only 100 years. The warning is:
"The principles of a free constitution are irrevocably lost, when the legislative power is nominated by the executive".
9.53 p.m.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, as the 43rd speaker to rise to speak on the second day of the debate on the White Paper and at least the 80th to speak during the two days, I am sure that noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to detain the House for more than a few minutes. The White Paper on House of Lords reform poses more questions than it answers. We are told in Chapter 1 that the Government are committed to,
"improving the effectiveness and balance of the House of Lords, with the aim of it playing a full and proper part in Parliament".
Do the Government want to keep the present and tried balance of power and responsibility between your Lordships' House and the other place, or do they intend to reduce the powers of your Lordships' House? Perhaps the noble Lord the Chief Whip will address that issue in his reply.
I believe that the Government owe it not to this House but to the country as a whole to clarify their position regarding what appear to be contradictory statements and suggestions in the White Paper. In Chapter 7, between paragraphs 23 and 27, there are some suggestions concerning the reduction of the powers which are currently available to your Lordships' House on the basis that they might be used more frequently by a reformed House. As other noble Lords have said, any reduction in the powers of your Lordships' House would make a mockery of the Government's claim to want a more effective second Chamber.
The Royal Commission has a great burden of responsibility. While I have every confidence in my noble friend Lord Wakeham and the other members of the Royal Commission, I do not have any confidence that the Government will follow the commission's recommendations and implement an effective reformed second Chamber.
The Executive is all powerful in another place. That is the case now as it was in the past when my party was in power. Members of another place are subject to very strong and effective party whipping. One of the strengths of your Lordships' House is that the Whips do not have any sanction and, in addition, as has been acknowledged, noble Lords on the Cross-Benches play an invaluable part in our proceedings. Thus it is essential that your Lordships' House is no less powerful in its reformed state than it is now so that it is in a position to hold the other place and, more important, the executive to account. The present Government and previous governments, including those of my own party, are not capable of holding the executive to account. The country perhaps does not understand that and it may not understand that, ironically, this House, in its present, undemocratic state, is the last defence which has some form of lever—by asking questions and causing delay—with which to hold the executive to account.
I shall support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, should he press it to a Division, for the reasons that I have given.
Finally, your Lordships' House will inevitably become more political after stage one of the reform and probably even more political after stage two, if it ever
1060
happens. That is regrettable as your Lordships' House will then undoubtedly lose many of the qualities which set it head and shoulders above the other place.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, the White Paper has already been well castigated by noble Lords in those areas about which it should have been castigated. Therefore, I hope that that shortens what I have to say.
I shall deal with one area, and one area only, which I wish to address because everything that I say hangs upon that. The White Paper mentions the Bryce Committee of both Houses in 1917–18. That studied proposals for an elected second Chamber more thoroughly than any other committee or commission has done. The Dictionary of National Biography says that in view of the many and varied views with which the chairman, Lord Bryce, was confronted, which led to difficulties in relation to agreement, he took the unusual step of reporting by letter to the Prime Minister of the day. I am afraid that that does not sound too good a precedent. After all, little was done about that report thereafter and it has gathered dust for about 80 years. Nevertheless, I believe that its proposals are worthy of note and I am glad to see them in the White Paper.
The abilities of Lord Bryce himself were also worthy of note. I should like to saw a few words about the other things that he did, which have a bearing on this. He was a Liberal. He was very well known in the United States for writing a book, The American Commonwealth, which was not read so widely in the UK but was read widely over there. It was a critique of the United States's constitution with many valuable comparisons with our own constitution. He did not express opinions himself; but he had a way of leading one to opinions that one could readily form for oneself. One got a good deal of guidance. It is interesting and important also that the book was written before 1911.
At that time we thought that the American constitution was too unwieldy; it had too many checks and balances and would therefore endanger the Executive's ability to govern. One should look back on that today. The United States' constitution has provided great stability. Their nation has grown to great prominence in the world and those impediments about which we were worried and felt might be disastrous do not seem to have mattered and perhaps were an advantage.
Their opinion of our constitution was rather like the one the noble Lord, Lord Richard, described earlier today; that is, with our Cabinet system of government, the only system. of checks and balances we had appeared to consist of the House of Lords. We otherwise had what amounted to an outright elective dictatorship. The Americans feared that the powers of the House of Lords were already too weak; that the House of Lords was vulnerable to demands for reform; and that such reforms would reduce the remaining checks and balances and render the Executive too powerful. They felt that that could disabilities the nation.
That was 100 years ago. We are still here today. Of course, the House of Lords kept going rather better than anybody, including myself, ever thought it would. At

1061
times it is true that we rushed into political actions which did us little good. Our all-important economy would have been stronger without some of those actions. We have already paid a price. My noble friend Lord Cranborne mentioned his anxieties about what was going on over constitutional matters.
The Americans would suggest that we have two options. One is to remove the Executive from the House of Commons; and the other is to move towards an elected second Chamber with more power. The first of those, it has to be said, is alien to our thinking. But the second, though many doubts have been expressed in this debate, may have to be the course we have to consider carefully and to go down. It will be a momentous change if and when we do. We may have to draw back from the brink—I do not know, we may have to draw back from several brinks!
It is a difficult matter that we have been trying to resolve for many years. That is why I suggest that the "no-stage-one-without-stage-two" proposition would be safer than stage one without stage two. Once the hereditary Peers are gone, I doubt the permanence of a nominated transitional House for long because of the need to top-up to preserve political balances. Unless and until we know, and stage two can be decided, we shall be off on a slippery slope without knowing what is at the bottom. For those reasons I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
10.5 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, this is not the moment to discuss the relative merits of the hereditary Peerage. The Government will get their Bill. Rather, it is a case of what comes next. As a number of noble Lords have suggested, that makes it all the more surprising that the context of our debate, the White Paper, is so obsessed with justifying stage one. Far from being a dispassionate exposition of the options for stage two, the White Paper is little more than a party political polemic.
The propriety of this is questionable. It may also be indicative of either the vacuity of the Government's case for further reform or an unwillingness to expose their real ambitions to detailed scrutiny. Peter Hennessy commented that,
"without doubt the twentieth [century] has belonged to the executive, not the legislature. Ours is very much the executive's Constitution".
That is true. There can be few who dispute how much of a creature of the executive another place has become. That is one cause among many for public disenchantment with our governmental and political processes. It is implicit in the text of the White Paper that the aim of the Government is to turn this Chamber into an instrument of the executive; to bind the powers and functions of your Lordships' House to the whim of the party of power. It is that which makes so much of the White Paper so offensive.
1062
Despite high-minded protestation that,
"Parliament is the core of political accountability in Britain",
the underlying thrust of the Government's case is the exact reverse; namely, that Parliament should be accountable to the executive. That is unacceptable. It also underscores a most persistent fiction of the current debate. As my noble friend Lord Inglewood pointed out, the White Paper claims that enactment of stage one proposals will represent,
"a real change in the way Britain is governed".
It will, but what I dispute is the presumption that this House is an instrument of government. It is not, at least not yet.
As the White Paper makes abundantly clear, it is above all else part of the legislature not the executive. As such, its primary and inter-related functions are the scrutiny and revision of legislation and the holding of the executive to account; functions which, for the sake of constitutional balance and good governance, are performed from a wholly discrete perspective to that which prevails in another place. The White Paper freely admits that, even—dare I say it?—with a measure of approbation. It acknowledges:
"A second chamber not only provides a longer process of scrutiny of legislation, it also allows it to be examined from a different point of view".
However, it singularly fails to explain the context of our bicameral arrangement, the Burkean principle of wants and needs.
This is not complicated. To use an analogy, an alcoholic wants to drink; he needs to be dried out. The one is a quick fix, the other an enduring solution. So it is with our legislative process. The other place is driven by a short-term political aspiration aimed at electoral advantage. Your Lordships' House is driven by a long-term, non-political obligation aimed at the "greater good". That is as it should be. It is an essential component of our constitutional balance.
At the moment there are few certainties attached to enactment of the Government's stage one proposals, let alone any of their further plans for reform. However, as many noble Lords have pointed out, we can be certain of at least one thing: the further politicisation of this House will be accelerated. It is implicit in the White Paper that the Government view that with approval. Of necessity, the text pays lip service to the need to maintain an independent element, but recent comments in debate from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, from the Leader of another place, and from the Home Secretary have undermined the Government's sincerity here. The text of the White Paper is riddled with references to the Government's wish to achieve a more politically effective and balanced House—in effect, a suppression of "needs" in favour of "wants".
The Government's plans for this House do not involve any improvements to the legislative process or to the capacity of Parliament to hold the executive to account. No, I repeat that they involve,
"a real change in the way Britain is governed".
That would break the distinction between the two Houses. It would corrupt constitutional balance. It would weaken Parliament. The underlying theme of the

1063
White Paper is further to subjugate Parliament to the will of the executive. However disingenuous their presentation, that is the sense of paragraphs 25 and 26 of Chapter 7.
The prevarication of the Government's position is contained in the observation that,
"the range of experience of those who enter elected politics is becoming increasingly narrow".
That is a tacit admission that the other place is no longer in a position to acquit its representative duties properly. It is not the sin of omission of your Lordships' House that motivates the desire to create a more representative Parliament; it is the sin of commission of the other place. The implication is that the tradition of this House for objective and dispassionate scrutiny from the perspective of the "greater good" is to be subjugated to the politics of another place.
We are engaged in a battle—a battle for Parliament. Only last week the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, drew the attention of the House to the fact that we are reverting once again to "executive government by decree". That is not a new phenomenon per se. Noble Lords opposite, when in opposition, have been equally discomfited and equally trenchant in contesting the efforts of the party of these Benches, when in office, to increase the power of the executive. That is as it should be. But it should be said that this Government's assault on Parliament is more dangerous than most. Consciously and deliberately, they seek to unpick the constitutional balance.
In a few months' time—or whenever it is that hereditary Peers finally get their redundancy papers—those who remain behind, in both Houses, should continue to be mindful of their constitutional duty. In this House and in another place, we are all Members of this Parliament. That position will persist post enactment of the Government's stage one proposals and, as Members of this Parliament, our first duty is to the institution of this Parliament. No one disputes that one of this Parliament's primary functions is to hold the Executive to account. We should do that as the White Paper says,
"on a basis other than that of party allegiance."
All of us, both here and in another place, should be parliamentarians before we are party hacks. Concepts of representation become meaningless if we are not.
As my noble friend Lord Denham suggested yesterday, administrations should be able to justify their decisions against a litmus test of whether they would be comfortable if they were on the receiving end of them. There will be a future Conservative administration. It may, as some believe, be a dim and distant prospect or it may be sooner than noble Lords opposite care to imagine. But do the Government and noble Lords opposite sincerely believe that their interests, let alone those of the nation, are best served by investing this degree of power in a Tory executive? I very much doubt it.
There is a more chilling aspect to the Government's ambitions. As we know only too well, far-reaching structural changes have already been made to our
1064
constitutional architecture. Despite the rhetoric, these have not—and will not—address the core reasons that contribute to,
"the national crisis of confidence in our political system"—
the dominance of political elites, the over-weening power of the executive and the apparent failure of the representative principle. They achieve the reverse. They strengthen the power of the party political apparat and the executive at the expense of individual voters—closed lists, Rhodri Morgan in Wales, Ken Livingstone in London, and so on. Proposals for reform of this House and Parliament are of a piece with this. The net effect will be to deepen,
"the national crisis of confidence in our political system",
and to elicit further disengagement of the public from its representatives, something that is already particularly well-entrenched so far as another place is concerned.
However, as the White Paper makes abundantly clear, Parliament's capacity to function,
"must rest on the assent of the people of Britain".
Disengagement is but a step away from the withholding of assent. In these terms, delivery of the Government's intent is not only to diminish Parliament but also to undermine its very authority or purpose. That is akin to this Parliament signing its own death warrant.
10.16 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh: My Lords, when I cross Parliament Square and thread my way through the crowds of people, predominantly young and many from far distant countries, gazing with awe up at the mother of parliaments, I wonder whether any of your Lordships share my feeling that many of them are thinking of their school days when they were told that this was the cockpit of democracy where legislation is formed by the influence of great debates. It produces the legislation which, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, reminded us earlier, has provided us in this country with centuries free of civil strife.
How far is this still the picture today? Four or five decades ago people who were busy in jobs all over the country—teaching, running companies and participating in local democracy—came to Parliament for the second half of the day, with their minds informed by the pressures of the task that they had been doing, to make the legislation in another place. No longer is it possible for people in another place to fulfil that dual role. Too often, their voting power must be met by the power to delay and frustrate. Procedural rules, introduced in the last quarter of the last century to deal with the problems of minority people, have been built upon. The result is the network of pacts and deals about which many noble Lords know much more than I do.
Most unfortunate is the power taken by those in charge of political parties to control the words and deeds of their members. Those young and idealistic Members in another place have to be so careful about expressing their independence. As many have pointed out, that process is still moving and phrases like "elected dictatorship" have been mentioned. We all have our views regarding just how dangerous that is. But the reason that I repeat what has already been referred to is

1065
that it emphasises just how important it is that the Royal Commission manages to produce recommendations which the Government can accept, and which will maintain in this House the quality of debate to which so many of your Lordships have referred.
Of course we must be clear—in case other people read Hansard—that things are not always quite so wonderful. As in all institutions, we have to sit through dull moments. Some years ago I attended a quick reading course in which we were told that we should moderate the speed at which we read in accordance with the quality of what we were reading. I hardly dare to tell your Lordships that the example given of the prose with the greatest number of words with the least meaning and substance was the Hansard columns of the House of Lords.
However, against that, we all know that the House of Lords committee on European affairs is greatly respected. The House of Lords Committee on Science and Technology occupies the same premier position. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, said yesterday, we must not put an age limit on participation in this House. Age limits are imposed because it is right and proper that people should not retain the leadership of great institutions—which requires great concentration over a long time—at too advanced an age. However, we shall sorely miss the contributions of people in their eighth and ninth decade who come to make a special point as a result of years of long experience.
The proposal in the White Paper which causes me great concern is the notion of balancing the numbers in the new reformed House in accordance with variations in the numbers and proportions of the political parties in another place. Page four of the Constitution Unit's report, Reforming the House of Lords Step by Step tells us that as a result of heavy computer studies it is calculated that art average of 100 new Members will be required in this House every Parliament—at least 25 a year. If we think of the swings that have occurred in the proportions of the political parties in another place in the past two or three decades, I think these averages are probably low.
How can we have an effective debating chamber with a good quality of debate with that proportion of new Members? A colossus computer will be needed. I suggest that if it comes, it should be called the Enigma Variation in memory of all those heroic people assemblies come into being. But the deserving result of that proposal would he not so much the numbers but the tendency for the retention of party driven argument to govern debate in this House. It is necessary to have a sufficient number of expert people who are Cross-Benchers or free of party attachment to produce the arguments which, when legislation is returned to another place, will be accepted because of the clarity of the thinking and the knowledge that is provided. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, earlier this evening, mentioned A. J. Balfour and said that democracy is government by explanation. That will be needed to return complicated legislation on difficult issues to another place.
1066
The Royal Commission's task will be difficult. It must perform the delicate balancing act of producing a report which ensures that another place does not feel threatened. It must be sure to retain the power to return legislation to another place and it must provide for the expertise in this House to 'which I have referred. I wish the Royal Commission the best of luck.
10.24 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I shall start with Macaulay and I shall end with Macaulay. It is interesting to note that when the 1688 rebellion took place it was the House of Lords that summoned King William to protect parliamentary liberties because the Commons was not sitting. As your Lordships will know, Macaulay was a Liberal; he was a Whig. He wrote in about one-and-a-half hours the whole of the Bengal cavil code. He was quite keen on the hereditary principle. He holds up as an example Lord Oxford of the time — who was eventually sacked by James II—and, in his great, traditional, Norman, Anglo-Saxon English, he speaks of a time,
"when the families of Howard and Seymour were still obscure, when the Nevilles and Percies enjoyed only a provincial celebrity, arid when even the great name of Plantaganet had not yet been heard in England. One chief of the house of De were had held high command at Hastings: another had marched, with Godfrey and Tattered, over heaps of slaughtered Moslem, to the sepulchre of Christ".
I quote that, partly because it is magic English and partly to show that a progressive Whig in the 19th century could still hold heredity to be a contribution to English political society.
I completely concede that that view has now changed beyond anything. What has not changed is the necessity for Macaulay's balanced Whig constitution. Your Lordships' House arose because the king could not govern without the advice and consent of the powerful nobles. My grandfather and grandmother were quite snobbish, and my grandfather—who was the brother of the next speaker's grandmother, though that is neither here nor yon—used to say to my grandmother, "Don't get over-excited, dear, you are only middle-class peerage".
I tell this story because when we built our house in 1720 we spent 70,000 quid on that house. Twenty years before, Parliament had voted a standing army of 10 battalions of infantry and two regiments of cavalry. The cost of that standing army was £370,000 a year. So it shows how, even in my grandfather's terms, the middle-class peerage had to be consulted because we were seriously powerful.
I am not powerful. I am a small peasant farmer.
Noble Lords: Ah!
The Earl of Onslow: I enjoy my privileges and, above all, enjoy the contributions that I try to make to your Lordships' House.
This House must be reformed; it must be reformed so that it represents the powerful, and it is the powerful of the land who come and advise the chief executive. If they think that the chief executive is making an idiot of himself or herself—as all chief executives do with

1067
monotonous regularity—we have got to have something that checks, but checks with an authority which is less than that of the Chamber of the commonality or the community.
How do we arrive at that? I have already suggested that I do not think that I represent power, nor, frankly, do life Peers represent power. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was an excellent deputy Chief Whip—a man of charm and ability. He arrived here because that great socialist, Ken Livingstone, stabbed him in the back. So what happens? He gets a peerage. This does not represent power; he has contributed. The father of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, is a Labour Peer, and her ex-father-in-law was a Labour Peer. She has not defended the ridge at Mont St. Jean—she has not even slept with Charles II—but she is still a Labour Peer. She is a lady of ability and charm—we all know that—but she does not represent power. How are we going to ensure that this House represents power and can check the executive?
I could go on about the fact that any constitution that has me in it because my forebear got tight with George I, George IV, or whichever one it was that we all got tight with, deserves reform. But what I hope and pray is that when we are reformed we can act as a check and a balance. When stage one has been passed, it will be interesting: the Salisbury Convention will go out of the window because the Salisbury Convention was, "You don't muck about with our constitution and we don't muck about with your programme". You, noble Lords opposite, have now mucked about with the constitution, so it is now the turn of the House of Lords to muck about with your programme. I think that is excellent because all governments need to have their programmes mucked about with.
When we come to the chairman of the Royal Commission, no Chief Whip has ever had any morals or any sense of right and wrong. They are there as overpromoted Oberfeldwebels in the Prussian Guard to get the government business through. The noble Lord opposite agrees. All I hope of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who is not present—it cannot be helped—is that he will cast aside the habits of either a Chief Whip or an Oberfeldwebel and take on the mantle of a rebellious, stroppy Peer who speaks to you now.
I shall end with yet another quote from Macaulay because it is a good quote and it is what I hope we shall do. He says:
"The main principles of our government were excellent. They were not, indeed, formally or exactly set forth in a single written instrument; but they were to be found scattered over our ancient and noble statutes; and, what was of far greater moment, they had been engraven on the hearts of Englishmen during four hundred years. That, without the consent of the representatives of the nation, no statute could be enacted, no tax imposed, no regular soldiery kept up, that no man could be imprisoned, even for a day, by the arbitrary will of the sovereign, that no tool of power could plead the royal command as a justification for violating any legal right of the humblest subject, were held, both by Whigs and Tories, to be fundamental laws of the realm".
That is the constitution for which we should aim. If the Bill that is to come before us goes just a little way to that and makes this House better, then I will support it.
10.33 p.m.
The Earl of Iveagh: My Lords, I thank my noble cousin Lord Onslow for his history lesson, I have learnt greatly in the process. I must first declare that I have no objection to losing my right to participate in the Lords as part of my inheritance. That having been said, I will be willing to go only when it is shown that the reformed House gains legitimacy in its capacity as a check and a balance on whatever government, whatever their colour.
In defence of the inheritance principle, I should like to make the perhaps quite obvious point that every one of us has characteristics that are a direct and indirect result of our family, from genetically inheritable characteristics such as eye colour and height to indirect considerations such as where we live, the values that have been nurtured in us by our family, our reaction to them, and so on.
We all inherit something. It is a universal human experience and will continue to be so long as science laboratories do not produce and nurture entirely cosmetic clones. I genuinely believe that there is a significant danger that this reform will substantially reduce the universality of this House, reducing the spectrum of its membership to the party faithful and its age range. As someone in his twenties, I must plead with the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, to consider opportunities for the young. This reform may additionally reduce its breadth of personal experience and the divergence of individual Members' ability.
On the last point, it is perhaps ironic that the Government who are challenging the principle of grammar schools on the basis of their elitist tendencies are the same Government who propose an even more elitist second Chamber by the introduction of exclusively appointed Members, at least in stage one of the reform, and possibly thereafter.
Turning to some of the points made by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House in opening the debate, I wish to challenge her assertion that:
"We have before us Bills which are central to the cares and concerns of most people in Britain".—[Official Report, 22/2/99; col. 847.]
An ICM opinion poll as recently as 9th February this year found that only 2 per cent. of the electorate recall the manifesto promise to reform the House of Lords. Two previous polls, both in November, conducted by ICM and MORI found that over 60 per cent. of the electorate were in favour of a clear strategy before implementing change to this House. In view of those points, surely the noble Baroness's statement is at best questionable. The noble Baroness also lamented the fact that the House has spent so much parliamentary time on reform of this House. But surely the Government have more than just a little say in deciding the parliamentary timetable?
In the opening months of this Government's term I introduced a Private Member's Bill to restore full British citizenship to Saint Helenians and those in the Islands' dependencies. This House passed the measure, only to have it blocked by the Government in another place. Still, no measure to address this issue has been incorporated in the Government's programme. Delay

1069
and prevarication have been the order of the day. While we sit in our places tonight, there are British people who feel proudly patriotic but who are denied any political representation at national level. These people's freedom of movement is unnecessarily burdened by red tape and bureaucracy. Their opportunities for work are severely curtailed by cumbersome work permits and visitors' visas. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has already made the point that the Overseas Territories should have some representation in a reformed Parliament. I unreservedly join him in that plea. The Saint Helenians are being denied some basic human freedoms. There are presently two types. of Britishness; there are first and second-class subjects. The Government should get their priorities right and begin by giving the under-privileged a better start in life. That would be a far more laudable form of social engineering than the present measures to bar hereditary Peers from this House in the absence of any substantive outline of how this House will finally be constituted.
I conclude by wishing the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his commission every success in their Herculean task. I urge them to uphold the independence and integrity of this House and not to bow to the inevitable government pressure for reducing the powers of this House. I urge the Government to treat the constitution that they inherited with kid gloves. It is far too precious to do anything other than handle it with care.
10.38 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal appeared to resent the holding of this debate. However, my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Henley are fully vindicated: first, because it has been an excellent debate; and, secondly, because this is the only opportunity to debate the White Paper ahead of receiving the narrowly focused and spiteful little Bill to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. The Bill owes more to prejudice, class warfare and party politics, and rather less to good governance.
I regret very much not hearing from more Members of the Government and Liberal Democrat Benches. I also regret not hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, Convenor of the Cross-Benches, whose contribution on the White Paper and the future of the second Chamber would have been much valued. This is a debate which ranges much wider than the terms of the Bill in another place. This debate is concerned not only with the consequences of stage one reform but also all further reforms to determine the future of our second Chamber.
It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the record of this House, and in particular the role of the hereditary Peers over the centuries, has been so grudgingly recorded. I wish to pay a wholehearted tribute to the work of this House, for its dedicated public service and sense of duty, for the quality of its debates, the outstanding work of the Select Committees and for the assiduous and painstaking way in which the House scrutinises and revises legislation.
1070
The set piece debates on such matters as social policy, foreign affairs and defence are read and respected widely. Many academic institutions use them to bring contemporary comment on serious issues to the notice of their students. This House harnesses the talents of the professional, the highly skilled, the highly informed, the compassionate, the enthusiastic and the occasional eccentric. It is a uniquely effective and cost-effective second Chamber, admired throughout the world. I would not have set about its destruction without the secure knowledge that something better was to replace it.
I have searched in vain for the intellectual case for the Government's proposals. The White Paper was certainly prepared in haste. It is very badly drafted, repetitious to a fault and lacks any philosophical comment. It is preoccupied with stage one reform. Reluctantly, and at the eleventh hour, the Government have put a Royal Commission in place. But they have given it an almost impossible timetable. If the Government are in such a hurry to receive the report of the Royal Commission, then why, oh why, is parliamentary time taken up with creating an unnecessary interregnum—time which would be better allocated to dealing with more pressing legislation?
As for the opening remarks of the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal, accusing my noble friends of self-indulgence by her comparison of hours spent by this House on reform of the House as opposed to education and the homeless, it was not only offensive to noble Lords on all Benches, who take those subjects extremely seriously, but it also displayed a total lack of understanding of the gravity and far-reaching effects of constitutional change. A strong, independent and effective second Chamber is an essential prerequisite for the role of holding the Executive to account.
It is a disappointment to many people inside, but more especially outside Parliament, that the tone set by the Lord Privy Seal and her right honourable friend the Leader of another place was hardly conducive to achieving a consensus on reform. Rarely have I witnessed such vitriol and hatred heaped upon the noble hereditary Peers of this House. Such an attack on hereditary Peers is an attack. on us all and it is shameful.
There would have been little resistance from my noble friends on these Benches and I suspect on other Benches too, had the Government decided, before embarking on changes, to take a root and branch look at the constitutional arrangements in the United Kingdom. It is timely to consider the workings of Parliament as a whole, to examine the role, the power and the functions of both Houses, the relationship of Parliament to the Church, to the judiciary and, most significantly, to the people of this country. Only after the most detailed analysis, examination and careful study, including the widest possible consultation and an attempt to secure the broadest possible consensus, should major constitutional reforms be undertaken.
Sadly, what we have instead is nothing less than constitutional vandalism on a massive scale, the effects of which will only become apparent some time after the damage has been done.

1071
I do not believe that many people, other than my noble friends led by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish who deal with constitutional issues on these Benches, have even begun to contemplate the ramifications of Scottish devolution and regional government. Certainly, my right honourable friend John Major warned of the fragmentation and weakening of the United Kingdom that would result from such ill-thought-out legislation. Already we feel the tensions growing and the almost desperate attempt by the Government to create new committees to shore up the United Kingdom.
As for Wales, the arrogance and contempt shown by the Government are staggering. They were arrogant to describe a 1 per cent. majority on such a small turn-out in the referendum "as the settled will of the people" and for the cursory way in which the Welsh Bill was dealt with by another place. Then, having promoted devolution in the spirit of "let the people speak", the Welsh people did speak, only to be crushed by the might of the block vote. Such cavalier contempt for democracy is truly breathtaking as well as hypocritical. The closed list system of proportional representation for elections, so fiercely defended by the Government, will increase the gulf between the people and Parliament, give power to the party apparatchiks and remove from the people the right to select and deselect an individual Member of Parliament.
The fragmentation that will result from many of the changes will mean a loss of clout for the United Kingdom within and beyond Europe. Without any doubt this is a most dangerous government. The democratic deficit that will result from these changes will be realised only when it is too late. It is against this background that the debate we are having on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, which I support wholeheartedly, acquires great significance.
The hallmarks of this Government are: central control; government by spin doctors and political advisers; lack of proper respect for civil servants; disregard, even contempt, for Parliament and its processes—note that they have turned government by leak into an art form—and a greater concern for the next day's headline than for the real issue. The latest autocratic phenomenon is for Ministers to refuse to answer Parliamentary Questions. The need for an authoritative second Chamber is absolutely essential.
Much has been made of the so-called massive Tory majority. I and my noble friends Lord Mackay, Lord Henley, and others who were defeated regularly as Ministers, know that in practice this House cannot, nor should it ever be, taken for granted. The strength of this House is the independence shown by Members on all Benches. By and large, in this House one must win the argument in order to receive the support of one's noble friends as well as the hearts and minds of Cross-Benchers and others. No "yah boo, sucks!" policies here. On many occasions the quality of argument used against me in debates on Bills strengthened my arm as a Minister to return to my department and fight for amendments which were then accepted by the House. It is that independence and the
1072
readiness of Members to subordinate party interest to what is perceived to be the greater good that is so precious and is at serious risk from the proposals of the Government.
The noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal cannot get away with saying that the powers of this House will not be weakened. Whatever their manifesto says, to restrict the circumstances in which a power can be used as suggested in paragraph 25 of Chapter 7 is a restriction of powers. The list contained in paragraph 26 of that chapter provides even greater proof of an intention to reduce our powers. The real agenda of this Government is to increase legitimacy but to render the House impotent to be effective in its role of holding the Executive to account. Nor can the noble Baroness claim on the one hand that the hereditary principle is fundamentally wrong in a modern society and on the other hand deny that the Royal Family will not be affected by reform. Perhaps not now, but the constitutional position of the Royal Family will become more vulnerable to reform with the passing of the Bill.
Under the present Government inexorably Parliament is becoming an irrelevance. One has only to watch the serried rows of government pager-controlled Back-Benchers in another place and to witness the number of occasions when the media rather than Parliament is informed of an issue. It is obvious that the Government would like to neutralise the effect of this House. Yet meanwhile the Executive is growing more powerful and the centre of gravity for decision-making is moving to Brussels.
The Government use slick and glitzy presentations. They describe policies in warm, glowing PR-speak while at the same time they are engaged in ill-thought out and piecemeal constitutional change without any care for how it will develop. The White Paper signally fails to address comprehensively constitutional change and the effects of the interaction between one set of reforms with others within the United Kingdom.
I, too, wish the Commission well in its task. I hope that it will not be constrained by Chapter 7 of the White Paper nor intimidated by the Government and that it will take fully into account the terms of my noble friend's amendment. However, the ultimate test will be whether a stronger, more effective and independent second Chamber will result from its work. But I have to say how sad it is that this House, as presently composed, will not be here to apply that test.
I take some comfort from this two-day debate. The support for a strengthened, independent and effective House, irrespective of whether noble Lords support or do not support the continued presence of hereditary Peers, has been overwhelming. Over the centuries hereditary Peers have performed their public service duties with great distinction in a second Chamber which is admired throughout the world. Evolutionary change from time to time has been enacted only after painstaking discussion and with a broad consensus of agreement. My plea, even at this stage, is to bury prejudice and engage brain before exercising the legislative pen. I salute the hereditary Peers. I regard it as a privilege to serve with them. I believe that the country will come to regret their wholesale abolition.
10.52 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, something like 100 noble Lords have taken part in this debate. It must be rare for so many estimable persons to spend so much time discussing a document so void of intellectual content and presented in such a dishonest fashion. I thought it dishonest, but it is only half dishonest. It is presented in terms of the modernisation of Parliament and reform of the House of Lords. I now understand that the computer went wrong. The original title was "The marginalisation of Parliament" and the rest follows.
One then begins to wonder why a Government which claim to have the interests of ordinary people at heart in terms of the social services, education and the usual mantras, spend most of their first two years in office putting through a number of constitutional proposals, all of them ill-conceived and most of them unnecessary.
But there is usually an answer to any question of motive. As with some other phenomena at the moment, the answer is what might be called, for shorthand purposes, the Blair/Mandelson project. It is not for me to define it. Fortunately, it has been defined by an impeccable source. A week ago on the radio I debated the question of constitutional change with a Dr. Tony Wright. The doctor is not a real doctor—there is just a D. Phil—but in new Labour circles that makes him an intellectual. This Member of Parliament, who took some notable part in the debate on the Bill which has been going through that House, used part of his time to indulge in verbal abuse at my expense. I do not object to that; good manners are not something automatically to be expected from new Labour! But he did proceed to explain the Blair/Mandelson project. I paraphrase as I do not have the transcript. He said that the intention is that the Labour Party should expand in order to include all the constructive elements in British politics and British society. It welcomes Liberal Democrats, gullible Conservatives, if they can be found, and anyone who will join in progressing towards the goals which that movement has set. Some people might say that that was the very definition of totalitarianism. So much for Dr. Tony Wright.
The noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Desai, referred to the fact that the only person quoted in the White Paper is Thomas Paine. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was a little indulgent about his biography. He did not admit that this radical, atheistic republican was also a traitor, that he always sided with the enemies of his own country and that he would have been indicted for treason if he had not fled to France. In France he teamed up with the wrong kind of revolutionaries and only narrowly escaped the guillotine.
One may ask: why Thomas Paine? There is again an answer to that. He is the great hero—the icon, if you like—of the ci-devant Viscount Stansgate, known as Tony Benn. Therefore, one must assume that giving this prominent place to Thomas Paine was a way of bringing even Tony Benn aboard this Blair/Mandelson project.
One then begins to wonder what is the purpose of the House of Lords part of the Blair/Mandelson project. It has become abundantly clear in the course of discussion
1074
and listening to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that the Government object to the fact that a second Chamber might, unless its powers were drastically curtailed, get in the way. It would be an irritant upon this great forward movement which we are asked to admire. The difficulty with taking that view, and intending also to change the membership, is that the White Paper takes for granted what it should prove. It takes for granted that the hereditary principle is somehow illegitimate. I find that quite extraordinary since, as I have pointed out in your Lordships' House previously, it is a principle which has had a part in the government of many countries and civilisations and appears to be a natural element in the way people perceive their rulers. But then one comes to the question: if that is not legitimate, is there a good deal to be said for the alternative method, which is elections? One might say that elections are very modern. They go back only a mere few centuries. But then one would have to look at their result. If one reads the debates on the Bill in another place or if one goes to watch its proceedings from our Gallery, it is quite obvious that the electors can get it wrong too. There are a large number of wholly uninformed but very voluble people. There are a lot of young women who flit about like a flock of demented starlings with their little microphones, enabling them to receive Mr. Alastair Campbell's instructions. The electorate is entitled to make a mistake. I have no doubt that the electorate will remedy it.
After all, we are dealing with an unnatural government and, as many examples would show, the most inefficient government, let us say, since Ethelred the Unready. Of course, as usual, I am being unfair. I mean that I am being unfair to Ethelred. Ethelred paid Danegeld but he did it in the face of massive military might. The present Government are willing to hand the country's treasure over to Frankfurt in the face of no military pressure at all, merely so that Ministers can enjoy the company—I was going to say the embraces but I thought that that is improbable—of Herr Schroeder and Mme Cresson. Who have you in mind?
Then again, Ethelred never took part, as far as we know, in any chat show. He was a relatively silent monarch. And finally, we know for certain that he never asked his monks to ghost-write articles for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and sign them in his name.
11.1 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, it is a privilege and a real pleasure but also a nightmare to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who always imparts such good sense with such style. It is, indeed, a double nightmare to be the last speaker in this lengthy two-day debate when I know that most noble Lords will be awaiting the wind-up speeches with interest. I say "most noble Lords" because I suspect that I could speak all night and it would still not give the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip enough time to come up with sensible answers to the points which noble Lords have raised over the past two days.
I took my seat as an hereditary Peer a little under a year ago and can claim that, if evicted, I shall not miss your Lordships' House too much after such a short time.

1075
Equally, I cannot he accused of sour grapes through having missed the opportunity of sitting in this wonderful place. Unfortunately other commitments prevented me from attending the two-day debate on Lords reform last October. However, I have read the Hansard reports with care but am disappointed that this Government have taken so little notice of what was said during those two days. On the other hand, I gain some small crumb of comfort from the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, seems to believe that his party will not be forming the next administration, as he predicts there will be an avalanche of hereditaries elected to the House of Commons.
Now we have moved on and have a White Paper on Lords reform and a Bill to remove the right of hereditary Peers to be Members of this House. This Government and the Labour Party make much of the fact that the reform of the Lords and the removal of hereditary Peers are all to do with democracy. That is a nonsense. Much is made of the fact that the abolition of the hereditaries was contained in that Holy Grail—the Labour Party manifesto of the last election. Really one must ask just how many people other than party apparatchiks actually read the document and of those who did, how many either noticed that element of policy or felt that it was an overwhelming reason to vote Labour. Strange as it may appear, I do not believe that the Labour Party won the last election. It was the Tories who lost it, which was not too surprising, considering the mire of sleaze into which they had sunk after 18 years in government. However, it is a fact that this present Government are in exactly the same sort of sleazy mess after just 18 months in power. So much for squeaky clean New Labour!
In spite of the carefully crafted words of the White Paper and official pronouncements, the supposedly democratic intentions of Lords reform are shown to be a lie because, unfortunately for this Government, Members of the Labour Party are quite unable to resist gloating about the demise of the hereditaries. What reform is in reality all about is envy, spite and jealousy. First, we have no lesser person than the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, in a radio interview broadcast on the day that the White Paper was published, confirming that our removal means that,
"The patronage of vast numbers of monarchs on our history is going to disappear".
I suppose that is the socialist equivalent of a right and left; a shot at the monarchy with one barrel and at the hereditaries with the other. Sadly, both missed, so there will be no certificate and no tie for the noble Baroness on this occasion.
Then we have the wonderful comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, made in the same radio broadcast, when she stated that she wanted far greater reform of the composition of your Lordships' House than just the removal of the hereditaries. She said,
"only if you are born great and good or wealthy do you get into the House of Lords".
1076
Really! I wonder under what category the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, was eligible? At least those of us who are quite poor can take comfort from the fact that we are presumably here because we are great or good.
It is reassuring that there are elements of Old Labour still around who cannot resist having a knock at the rich. Maybe it is nostalgic to say so, but I remember the 'sixties and 'seventies when Labour was in power with some affection. Yes, the noble Lord, Lord Healey, may well have talked about taxing the rich until the pips squeaked, but there was something rather endearing about having a Prime Minister who spent his holidays in the Scilly Islands rather than, as is the case with the present premier, in the Seychelles.
Thirdly, we have the utterances of the Foreign Secretary on the subject of the removal of the so-called "club rights" from hereditaries when he said that we would no longer be able to,
"live like Lords at the taxpayers' expense".
Poor Mr. Cook; how my heart bleeds for him having to slum it with his new wife at Chevening at the taxpayers' expense. Perhaps he should invite his colleague, Mr. Cunningham, down for a weekend to see how the other half lives and as a contrast to the jaunts on Concorde or in the private jet, the stays in Conrad Hotels and the meals in Michelin starred restaurants.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Lord to one of the items in the Companion, which says,
"It is undesirable that any Member of the House of Commons should be mentioned by name, or otherwise identified, for the purpose of criticism of a personal [rather than a political] nature".
Noble Lords: Withdraw!
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will convey that point of view to her colleague, the Foreign Secretary, given his comments about Members of this House.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that I do not need to draw to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition that the Foreign Secretary was not making those remarks in this House.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for those comments. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, "doth protest too much".
Noble Lords: Order, Order!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, order! Next speaker.
Noble Lords: No, no!
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, perhaps I may continue.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I invite the House to hear the end of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath.
Noble Lords: No. Goodhart!
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Gardner of Parkes): My Lords, the question is that the speaker be allowed to continue his speech. All those in favour?
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I suspect it is the wish of this House that I continue. I do not mind how Government Ministers choose to live, but it ill behoves them to throw stones when living in fragile glasshouses.

1077
In reality, I very much doubt whether hereditary Peers would either bother, or have the time, to use the excellent catering and other facilities in your Lordships' House if they are no longer allowed to participate in the business of this House. However, it is sad that they will no longer be able to host events in support of charity, British industry or whatever, within the Palace of Westminster, as they do so well at present.
I turn to the White Paper and the business of reform. The Government make much of the fact that stage one has to be completed before stage two can be implemented. There are no valid reasons for that argument. A Royal Commission has been set up and its members selected, to include the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. Following extended pressure on the Government, I understand that the commission is to report by the end of 1999—a very short time indeed—and that stage two will be implemented within the lifetime of this Parliament. Given that the great majority of hereditary Peers are committed to sensible reform, and that the sticking point is over the Government's intransigent attitude that the two stages have to be taken separately, why on earth can the Government not give way gracefully, taking the reforms as one package? That will mean that the hereditary Peers are gone by 2001, or, at the very latest, 2002. After all, it is surely an insult to suggest that hereditaries, many of whom have served your Lordships' House with distinction for 20, 30, even 40 years or more, do not have a worthwhile contribution to make towards the future structure of this House. The present arrangement is akin to asking us to leave home without locking the front door.
I understand that perhaps I should not speak for too long, but I have one further point to make. I turn finally to the implications these reforms will have for my own part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland. In the Province we have nine life Peers with an average age of 71 and seven hereditary Peers with an average age of 58. If the three Irish Earls of Antrim, Belmore and Caledon were allowed to join us, the average age of the hereditaries would drop to 56. I am old-fashioned enough to subscribe to the view that age often equates with experience, but our life Peers do not represent a broad spread through the generations. Of greater concern is that, if the rumours about a retirement age for life Peers at 75 are true, we would lose five of that number immediately and another within a couple of years. With the hereditary Peers also gone, Northern Ireland would he left with just three representatives in your Lordships' House.
Noble Lords have put forward ideas—some ingenious and some well thought out—as to how the new House of Lords might operate. I, too, am disappointed that we have not heard more from the Labour Back Benches. Maybe their reluctance to speak is because they have no real idea of how to move forward. However, we have had a speech of monumental thoughtfulness and good sense from the distinguished former Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, which largely mirrored in content that of the former Conservative Leader, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I could detect very little between them and, in truth, I would
1078
agree with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Richard said. Unfortunately, I do not think that he is an advocate of the hereditary Peers playing a part in the debate as to how stage two might be implemented after the Royal Commission has reported.
Therefore, I cannot agree with the White Paper, nor can I support the House of Lords Bill as presently constituted. For us to leave now is not democratic and is downright dangerous.
11.13 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the end is at last in sight. I refer not only to the end of the hereditary Peers' membership of your Lordships' House, but also to the end of this debate. There have been times during this afternoon and evening when I felt that the two were likely to continue for about the same length of time.
We have now crossed the gap and come to the first of the wind-up speeches. My speech is to be followed by the speech from Channel 4's "Peer of the Year", the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as they have just demonstrated, his noble friends are waiting eagerly to hear him, as are, indeed, the rest of us. I therefore hope that. I shall not keep your Lordships too long from that treat.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this has been a very long debate. More than 90 Peers have already spoken. Indeed, it has been so long that my mind has wandered off course from time to time. At one point, I drifted off for a moment and dreamed that we were debating a moratorium on the genetic modification of the hereditary peerage. I then woke up and found that that was what we were debating! Of course, the genetic modification of the hereditary peerage has been going on for at least as long as the hereditary peerage has existed—and I shall not speculate on whether it has created an improved product!
Your Lordships' House has had a curious appearance in the past two days. The Conservatives and the Cross-Benchers have been here in force. The Government Benches have been relatively empty, and our own even more so, although I now notice some rather unfamiliar faces behind me. As far as my party is concerned, I make no apology. Of course we regard the reform of your Lordships' House as a matter of the highest constitutional importance. We, in this party, have been advocating reform for years, even when the other parties were largely silent. We had two days of debate on this subject in October and a considerable part of another day during the debate on the Queen's Speech.
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House was absolutely right in recognising the wish of the House and arranging this debate, but on these Benches we prefer to keep our powder dry for Second Reading. The result of the shortage of Back-Bench speakers on our

1079
Benches and on the Government's Benches has been that the debate has been one-sided and, to some extent, repetitive. There have been some exceptions to that. From yesterday, I note in particular an intelligent and effective speech from the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, on the Conservative Benches, and from the Cross Benches a bold and radical call for a fully elected second Chamber and for progress to that as soon as possible from the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, who I am glad to say is my brother-in-law.
Today, the debate has been raised to very great heights by the speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who were to a remarkable extent in agreement with each other. That is the only point on which I agree with the immediately preceding speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath.
Today, we have also heard a thoughtful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, about the future role of your Lordships' House; a very entertaining speech from the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon; what I would describe as a typically moderate and balanced speech.. from the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and we have had the sight of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, wearing not only a Garrick Club tie, but also what appears from this distance to be a Garrick Club shirt!
Too many speakers have harped on the same old themes. Some have praised your Lordships' House for its independence. The alleged independence of your Lordships' House reminds me of an experience I once had when canvassing. I rang a doorbell; a woman opened the door; I asked her for her support in the forthcoming election, and she answered, "We are not interested in party politics; we are all Conservatives here". The Conservative Members of your Lordships' House are perhaps a little more independent than their honourable friends in the other place, but they are still Conservatives. Indeed, the Cross-Benchers seem to speak and vote far more with the Conservatives than against them. I note that many Cross-Bench speakers today were even more firmly opposed to reform than were most Conservative speakers.
It is a good idea that control of your Lordships' House should from time to time be in different hands from control of the other place. Speaking for myself, I would welcome a system of election to the second Chamber which would make that possible. We cannot justify a system which means that the Conservatives are always the most powerful party in your Lordships' House, whichever party has a majority in the other place.
Other speakers have proposed a continuation of the role of hereditary Peers in the second Chamber, through the conversion of the Cranborne/Weatherill amendment into a permanent arrangement, or through proposals such as those of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and others in various versions, that hereditary Peers should have a right to speak but not to vote.
Frankly, that is unrealistic. The principle is quite clear: no one should have rights to take part in the proceedings of Parliament simply by reason of the accident of birth. Indeed, only Glenn Hoddle could find
1080
justification for that—in his eyes, hereditary Peers must have performed extraordinary service to mankind in their previous existences in order to justify rebirth as heir to a seat in your Lordships' House.
The Cranborne/Weatherill amendment is a useful, pragmatic and ingenious agreement which, I believe, makes it virtually certain that stage two will go ahead. But there is no reason why the special rights of hereditary Peers should be continued even in vestigial form into stage two. Other speakers have emphasised the., need for more gradual reform. Gradual? Perhaps I may remind your Lordships' House that the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 called for,
"a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis",
and also for limiting and defining the powers of the new second Chamber. That was 88 years ago; and 88 years is surely gradual enough for anyone.
Of course I have great respect for the services to Parliament of hereditary Peers through work in your Lordships' House and its committees. I echo the tribute that was paid so eloquently yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I recognise that it will be a matter of personal sorrow for hereditary Peers who have made valuable contributions to the work of this House to have to leave. However, hereditary Peers have been living on borrowed time for 88 years. That loan has been left outstanding far longer than anyone in 1911 could have expected; but is now, at last, being called in.
I must also say that some very effective points were made against the Government during the course of the debate—points with which I concur. First, the Royal Commission should have been appointed 18 months ago. It has been given a very tight schedule—indeed, in practice, rather less than 10 months. I hope that the Government will allow it a few months extra if the members if the commission think they need it, as well they may.
Secondly, and more importantly, like my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, I believe that the second Chamber should be predominantly elected. In my mind, "predominantly" means at least two-thirds. I am, therefore, unhappy with the proposal in the White Paper which appears at paragraph 33 of Chapter 8, suggesting that two-thirds might be too high a proportion of elected members. In that respect, I fully support what the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Desai, said on this subject. I would not go as far as some in calling for a wholly elected second Chamber; there is, indeed, a role for non-political experts in membership of a second Chamber. However, I think, as our Liberal predecessors thought in 1911, that a second Chamber should be constituted on a popular basis. In my view, a "popular basis" does not mean an appointed one.
Finally, I strongly share the view that the existing powers of your Lordships' House should not be reduced under the new regime, though, as my noble friend indicated yesterday, I do not believe that it is appropriate to direct a mandate to the Royal Commission. Therefore, we do not support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.

1081
A predominantly elected second Chamber, with at least its present powers, is, I believe, the objective at which we should aim. When we get to stage two, I hope that that is what we shall get.
11.23 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I should start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his trailer. In exchange for that, I have given him some supporters on his Back-Benches which would otherwise be quite vacant. I should also apologise to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—and, indeed, the four speakers who succeeded her yesterday—for not arriving here until my noble friend Lord Denham was reciting G. K. Chesterton. The fault was not in my stars but in my aircraft, in that British Midland let me down badly on my trip down here and the 11 o'clock plane from Glasgow did not take off until about 10 minutes to two. Your Lordships can work out that as British Midland has not reached the stage of space age travel where you just vaporise and appear at your destination a second later, it took me some time to get here. Therefore I am composing a letter of complaint to British Midland, although perhaps I should send a letter of thanks. However, I heard the two opening speeches today. I heard the one from the ill-trained spaniel. I am not sure what canine equivalent applies to the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that if he and my noble friend Lord Cranborne had been left to get on with the matter, who knows what would have happened? Having listened to both of them and agreed with much of what they both said—as I think did most of your Lordships to judge from the sounds that emanated from around the House—that prospect might have led to a better and certainly a quicker outcome than that on which we are now embarked. My noble friend described this Chamber as the repair chamber of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, quoting Mr. Hugo Young with approval, said that we had to be meaningful actors. Both explored the simple proposition that if we are to be a meaningful, good repair chamber, we require authority and standing.
Interestingly enough, the serious changes which have been made to Parliament in my lifetime have not been made by the modernising, progressive Labour Party, but by the Conservative Party. It was the Conservative Party when in government which introduced life Peers. It was the Conservative Party which introduced lady Peers. That may not have been a good thing, but who knows? I suspect that on balance it was. After the experiences of a few moments ago one or two noble Lords might not agree with that. We also introduced the right of Peers to renounce and to stand for the Commons. Of course in the other place my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley introduced the important Select Committees and my noble friend Lord Jopling introduced the Jopling reforms. Therefore we have a record of reforming Parliament which can certainly stand comparison with the party opposite. Therefore the idea that we or indeed your Lordships in all parts of the House want a changeless constitution is simply not true. Indeed, when the Labour government in the late 1960s proposed
1082
reform, it was not your Lordships' House where the rebellion took place; it' was in the other place and the reform was stopped.
I think it is true to say that hardly any, if any, hereditary Peer who has spoken has argued the right of all hereditaries to sit and vote here. What my noble friends and others have said is that if they have to go, they want to be sure that the House which succeeds them is as good if not better at its job than this one. Of course I agree that some 300 hereditary Peers hardly or never attend. Clearly they will not be missed. Equally, there are a number of life Peers who hardly or never attend, and clearly they will not be missed either. I hope that one of the matters the Royal Commission will address in any newly constituted House is exactly this problem.
I return to my noble friends, the hereditary Peers, and indeed to their colleagues around the House, and specifically to those who attend. I think it is right that at the end of this debate I should underline the fact, mentioned by many Peers who have spoken, that they have played an important part in the affairs of this House and of this nation. That role is not just played out on the Floor of your Lordships' Chamber; it is also played out in particular in many of the committees in your Lordships' House. I think we should publicly thank them for their work over the years. We appreciate them and they should not listen to some of the spiteful things said about them in the other place, or even here. I refer to the tendency on the Government Benches to be pretty spiteful. Even the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—if I may say so, having read her speech—descended to that a little when she compared the length of this debate with debates on health and homelessness. I have checked the debate of 10th February. It is interesting to note—the noble Baroness did not mention this—that of the 18 Peers who spoke in that debate, one was a right reverend Prelate, three who wound up were life Peers, but of the other 14, six were life Peers and eight were hereditaries. I do not care from where they spoke in the House. I do not think it was worthy of the noble Baroness to make that jibe.
I also think it is a pity that the Labour Benches have been largely silent in this debate. Such is the control tendency that even some who are always keen to give us their views have followed the pager's instruction and taken a vow of silence. Or perhaps their almost total absence for most of the debate—although I am glad to see a few are here now—can be taken by some of us to show their lack of support for this particular government policy. Which is it? Your Lordships should be told. I thought something had gone wrong when the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, was drawn to his feet at one stage during the day, but then I realised the problem: he is so newly on the Government Benches that he has not yet been given a pager.
Despite the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, it is a pity that the Liberal Democrats have followed the pager message as slavishly as they have. But I suppose that Paddy—if I may call him that without being reprimanded—and Tony agreed on that at one of the Cabinet committees.

1083
When we were so lacking in speakers from the governing party, it is not easy to be positive and say what we can probably all agree on—but I shall try. I think we all agree with page 24, paragraph 6, in the White Paper. It states:
"The Government believes that there should continue to be a two stage legislative process with Bills examined by differently composed bodies. A second chamber not only provides a longer process of scrutiny of legislation, it also allows it to be examined from a different point of view. A second chamber, whose members are assembled in another way from the first, brings different knowledge and experience to bear on proposals to change the law".
I do not think that any of us disagree with that; it is probably common ground.
Again on page 36, at paragraphs 7 and 8, where the role of the second chamber looking into the future is discussed, it states:
"The role of the second chamber should … complement rather than duplicate the role of the House of Commons. The House of Lords provides a valuable function of scrutiny, without which the burden on the House of Commons would be greater and the quality of government legislation diminished".
Those of your Lordships who take part in the legislative process certainly know that from your own experience. That is something I have experienced from both this side of the House and the other side when I was a government Minister.
I shall leave out the bit about the role of the Bench of Bishops. As a Presbyterian, I was reminded earlier by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose about battles long ago. I am not sure whether I am allowed to approve of bishops. But I always listen with interest to what they say, and occasionally I had to vote against them when I was in government.
As to the Law Lords, I also agree with the point made in the White Paper, although I do not think that it is just retired Law Lords who play a distinguished part; I think all Law Lords do. It was a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, decided to have a debate the other night about the role of the Law Lords and not to subsume that debate into the one we are having today. In that debate my noble friend Lord Kingsland said:
"I believe that the judiciary is being asked to bear too heavy a political burden. The reason for that is the failure of the political part of our constitution to do its job in controlling the executive. One looks in vain at the programme of constitutional reform of the Government for anything which increases the power of members of the legislature to control members of the executive".—[Official Report, 17/2/99; col. 731.]
I fear that my noble friend will continue to look in vain. It is no part of the Government's grand design to enhance the role of either House of Parliament. On the contrary, everything points to a diminution in the role of Parliament and an increase in the power of the executive.
It is because the question of composition and powers are inexorably linked that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has tabled his amendment. It draws our attention in particular to paragraph 26 of chapter 7 on page 40. That paragraph—which I am not going
1084
to read out, but is well worth reading a few times—starts off by saying:
"a better approach might be to reduce the theoretically available powers".
Five bull points are addressed in paragraph 26. I have no problem with the one which suggests that perhaps Bills which start in your Lordships' House should be treated in the same way, as far as concerns the Parliament Act, as Bills which start in the other place. I have no problems with that, but I have problems with all the others.
I agree—this is where 1 suppose the Mafia not just of the former Chief Whips, as they were described earlier by my noble friend Lord Jopling, but of former Members of the House of Commons comes out—that governments should get their business. Indeed, they do and they did. On student fees, for example, and on the European elections, they got their business. They had a bit of a struggle but they got their business. And that should be underlined. So it is ironic how on every defeat in this Parliament the Government have put out a bleating, self-pitying press release complaining about the hereditary Peers, yet when they defeated us in the last Parliament—I was certainly a recipient of a few defeats at the hands of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham—they put out boasting, gushing press releases about the wisdom of your Lordships' House, hereditary Peers and all. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, from the safety of the Back Benches, if I may say, that in opposition Labour described the Conservative defeats as rebuffs, yet in government it describes government defeats as outrages.
I believe that the combination we have in this House of conventions allied to the Parliament Act severely constrain, rightly, your Lordships' powers vis-a-vis the House of Commons. I hope the Royal Commission will say clearly that, until it is shown to be unworkable, any differently constituted House should continue the same mixture of convention and the Parliament Act. It is in an elected, or even in a partly elected, House that the powers of this House and the primacy of the other place would come into the clearest conflict. Absolutely no one should underestimate the problem of creating an elected second Chamber. Whatever it starts off with, it will demand more and more powers vis-à-vis the House of Commons.
I think that there are huge problems about a partly elected chamber, because half of your Lordships—the elected half—will think you are every hit as good as the Commons, and certainly a lot better than the other half. So I hope that the Royal Commission will proceed with caution and will realise that if it goes down the elected road it will have to address very seriously the way it rebalances our constitution between this House and the other place.
There are lots of variations on how you appoint a House, if that is the direction in which you go, but I have no wish to go into them in any great detail. What is true is that there is a great deal of shallow thinking on the Government's part, and nowhere more so than in the suggested relationship of Members of this House to Members of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament. Indeed, the

1085
existence of these new bodies inevitably means that the Royal Commission will have to look quite anew at the situation. That will make its task of reporting before the end of the year very difficult indeed because no one has had to look at these different parliaments in the United Kingdom and in Brussels before.
I want to use the Scottish Parliament as an example, if I may. What role would the Scottish Peers sent by the Scottish Parliament, especially if they were Members of the Scottish Parliament, have here? They could discuss only reserved matters. No Scottish legislation will come to this House, unless the Government have a surprise up their sleeve. So how could Scottish Peers be sent by the Scottish Parliament to take part in English legislation? They simply could not. That is but one small example of how I believe the Government have not properly thought out their constitutional changes. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who knows a great deal about constitutions, made that point very succinctly in a speech which we should all read a few times over to see exactly the kind of problems we shall have if we address the constitution in a piecemeal way.
Scotland offered the Government a real warning—a warning about that well known law, the law of unintended consequences. In the words of very senior government Ministers, devolution was supposed to bury the SNP. Let us look at the facts. To date, the best result obtained by the SNP, which wants to break up the United Kingdom, was in 1974 when it won 11 out 71 seats. All the polls suggest that it is likely to get about 40 out of the 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament. That is a very considerable increase in percentage terms in the influence and impact of the SNP in the legislature.
It is the duty of the Royal Commission to examine the unintended consequences of any reform of this place. I do not believe for one minute that when the Government set out on devolution for Scotland they believed that the consequence would be a more powerful Scottish National Party; they believed that it would be a weaker one. Such is the law of unintended consequences.
It simply cannot be sensible to remove the hereditaries and to make this House, in the Government's words, more legitimate, yet at the same time decrease its powers. Almost all noble Lords who have spoken, as well as outside commentators, are not worried about increasing the power of the Lords or the Commons to deal with the Executive. It is the power of the Executive to neuter both Houses of Parliament which causes concern.
However composed, what we need is a vibrant House of Lords, differently composed from the Commons, clearly not usurping the position of the elected Chamber, trusted to behave properly and to exercise its powers sensibly and, above all, with sufficient strength and independence to ask the Commons, or rather the Government, to think again.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, drew our attention to the concluding part of Chapter 2:
"A fully reformed second chamber will have a vital role in the renewed democracy of Britain"
1086
I could argue about the word "renewed". However, I shall not argue with the proposition that a fully reformed second Chamber will have a vital role in the democracy of Britain. I certainly hope that the Government will do nothing to bring about a Chamber here that is less effective, less powerful and less of a check on the Executive than the one that we already have.
11.41 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, this has certainly been a wide-ranging debate. A number of noble Lords kindly referred to my patience in sitting through the two days of debate. It is more fun than farming is at present—just! I have to admit that at a certain point I had that familiar feeling that all that needed to be said had been said, but, as always, not every noble Lord who needed to say it had said it. It would be invidious of me to suggest when that point was reached. I shall leave it to your Lordships to make that choice.
In the time available it would be impossible to mention all the contributors by name. I therefore propose to deal with the questions raised by grouping them into broad subjects. I shall mention noble Lords where I can. I hope in that way to be able to deal with most of the issues raised.
As my noble friend the Leader of the House said in opening the debate, the Government have set out in their White Paper as much as they think it appropriate to say about the issues now being considered by the Royal Commission. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, will recognise the large number of submissions that have been made in the course of the debate. We, too, have taken note of them. However, it would not be right for the Government to respond in any detail to them as so much of the debate was, quite properly, directed towards the Royal Commission and not to the Government.
The Government entirely share the view that it is essential that Parliament should be properly equipped to scrutinise legislation and to hold the executive to account. That is precisely why we wish to reform the composition of this House. In our view its present composition means that it lacks the legitimacy to do properly, and with confidence, the tasks entrusted to it. Of course I should be the first to acknowledge that many Members of the hereditary peerage work honourably and hard in fulfilment of the duties laid upon them. Some have used their status here as a platform to draw attention to important issues which otherwise might have passed unnoticed. I freely admit that. But, as has been said so many times, we think that it is time to change, and we are convinced that the change we propose is the right one.
Turning to the debate in general. I detected what I can most politely describe as a certain lack of intellectual rigour in the Conservative Party's official view on this important subject. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made much of the Opposition's intention to put thought before action. Having listened to the debate, I cannot help feeling that the Conservative thought process on this matter owes rather more to Rip Van Winkle than to Socrates. Indeed, a number of

1087
speeches from the Benches opposite left the strong impression that in the view of the speakers the major constitutional outrage committed by this Government was to win the last election with an overwhelming majority and with a clear mandate to reform this House.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. My noble friend the Leader of the House has made clear that the Government agree with the first part of it. Who can be against an increase in the independence of Parliament and an enhancement of its ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the executive to account? However, in our view where the amendment falls down is by suggesting that the Government should prescribe the work of the Royal Commission. The amendment refers to Chapter 7, paragraph 26, of the White Paper regarding powers but ignores an important point made at the beginning of the White Paper in Chapter 2, paragraph 24. It clearly states:
"We wish it"—
that is the Royal Commission—
"to consider all the options for reform, consistent with its terms of reference, without advance prescription".
What is set out in Chapter 7, paragraph 26, concerning the powers of a reformed House of Lords is a proper matter for consideration by the Royal Commission along with all the other matters which are put forward for its consideration: for example, the arguments for and against an elected Chamber, a nominated Chamber and a mixed Chamber. These are not prescriptions by the Government. They are a description of the areas that the Royal Commission may well wish to consider, and other areas too if it so wishes. They are certainly not recommendations or proposals for policy. They are, to quote the White Paper,
"Areas where the powers might be looked at".
No more and no less than that.
Your Lordships know very well that the formal powers of this House are those of a co-equal but not subordinate Chamber except when it becomes necessary formally to invoke the Parliament Acts. It is now universally accepted and also in this debate that in practice this House is the subordinate Chamber. The only way in which a proper balance between the two Houses respecting that agreed relationship can be achieved is for us normally not to use the powers available to us or to hedge their use around with conventions. It does not seem to the Government an effective way of proceeding for the relationship between the two Houses in the future to be left dependent upon conventions, especially as the rationale for many of the conventions will itself have disappeared with the reformation of the membership of the House.
We therefore suggest that the Royal Commission will need to address the issue. We feel that there are at least two ways of doing so. One is to codify the conventions under which we operate at present in legislation. However, those conventions spring largely from the deficiencies of the present composition of the House. We therefore suggest consideration of a different but perhaps more straightforward and honest approach. That is to look at what powers the House needs to have
1088
available to it on a day-to-day basis—not the apocalyptic powers which could be used only at the risk of a crisis between the two Houses, but real powers, directly addressed to the House's role of scrutinising, reviewing legislation and asking the Government in another place to think again. The White Paper explicitly recognises what the Opposition amendment and other Opposition comments on the passage have studiously failed to do: namely, that one of the results of this change might well be that the powers would be used more frequently. Which is better and more effective? Huge powers which cannot be used or sensible and appropriate powers which can?
So I am afraid that we cannot support the amendment as drafted, although we are in agreement with the general sentiments expressed in the first part of it. However, we do not think it right to support an amendment which suggests that the Government should attempt to prescribe the work of the Royal Commission, with a very important exception, which is set out in its terms of reference, having regard to the need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent Chamber.
If the Leader of the Opposition decides to press his amendment, I shall advise my colleagues to take no part in the process. We cannot accept that this House should attempt to fetter the considerations of the Royal Commission. For us to support the amendment would he to run directly counter to our proposition that the Government should not attempt to prescribe in advance what recommendations the Royal Commission might make.
Some noble Lords commented on the provisions of the Bill at present before the other place. The Government have taken careful note of the points made in debate. However, the proper time for us to respond to them is in the debate on the Bill itself. I do not propose, therefore, to comment at this stage on detailed points about the contents or drafting of the Bill. There will be plenty of time for that when the Bill is before the House.
My noble friend the Leader of the House explained why we have decided to proceed in two stages with the reform of your Lordships' House. Whether we are right or wrong to do so is, I recognise, a question on which there is a genuine difference of view. I also recognise, however, that it is a question on which a lot of spurious political capital is being expended. The conversion of noble Lords opposite who desire full-scale reform of your Lordships' House—the so-called "big bang"—is entertaining to observe, especially in light of the statement in their own 1997 campaign guide that it was important to defend the hereditary principle in its own right. I reiterate that, based on previous experience, we are convinced that the two-stage approach is the one with the greater chance of success.
The party opposite appears to be in a muddle when it considers both the transitional and reformed House. On the one hand, we have heard about "the Prime Minister's poodle", "an ermine quango" and "Tony's cronies". We have also heard at length about the increased legitimacy of a reformed House and the terrible things that it may do to the Government. I am afraid that one cannot have it both ways. The two arguments cannot both be right.

1089
Chief Whips deal in only two commodities: time and numbers, with the necessary by-products of charm and good will. As to time, my noble friend the Leader of the House pointed out in her opening speech yesterday that by the time we finish today's debate the House will have devoted some 40 hours of its time to Lords reform since last October, before the reform Bill has even reached this House. Therefore, I do not think that anyone can claim that the House has not had sufficient time to debate this important subject.
I turn to numbers. Perhaps I may deal once and for all with the question of the independence of hereditary Peers that has been raised by many noble Lords. Your Lordships will be familiar with the figures, but they are worth repeating. In the 1974 and 1979 Wilson and Callaghan governments the House of Lords defeated the Labour government on average about 60 to 70 times per Session. During the Conservative years in government there were on average 13 defeats per Session. In the first Session of this Government (1997–98) there were 38 whipped Divisions when they were defeated. The Government would have won 35 of those Divisions on the votes of Life Peers.
But the really interesting figures arise if one looks back to the previous Conservative government. If one takes the last complete Session of that government (1995–96), excluding Divisions where there were free votes or votes without a quorum, there were 94 normal Divisions. The Conservative government were defeated 10 times, but nine of those defeats would have been greater without the votes of hereditary Peers. Of the 84 victories of the previous government, 64 would have been defeats without the votes of hereditary Peers. Under the previous Conservative government it was the life Peers who asked the other place to think again and the hereditary Peers prevented it.
Some noble Lords have commented on the power of this House to act as a brake on a government with a very large majority in another place. As Chief Whip I certainly saw that power being exercised in the first Session of this Parliament. What happened to it during the period when the then Mrs. Thatcher had a huge majority? Does anyone believe that if Mrs. Thatcher, as she then was, had faced a House of Lords with Labour vastly in the majority she would not have driven through a reform Bill to alter its composition?
Can we now recognise the inherent unfairness of the present structure of the House and stop talking about the independence of hereditary Peers? The figures clearly show that in the Division Lobbies hereditary Peers have saved Conservative legislation and savaged Labour legislation, including forcing the use of the Parliament Acts on a whipped Bill for the first time since 1949. This is not to deny for a moment the considerable public and parliamentary service that has been given by many hereditary Peers, but it underlines the manifest unfairness of the present House and the urgent need for its reform.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred disparagingly to the fact that the Government had, as he put it, sat on their hands for 21 months. The Conservative government sat on their hands for 18 years, during which
1090
time they did nothing about reform of the House of Lords. The figures that I have just quoted explain why. But since the general election and the return of a Labour government we have a considerable apparent change of heart from the Benches opposite. We have former Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers in another place and here suddenly alive to the merits of an elected second Chamber and the increased power of Parliament to check the Executive. Many noble Lords in this debate have asked for increased powers for the House of Lords. We have a commission set up under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. We also have pressure groups such as Commonsense for Lords Reform. The Conservative change of stance on reform since the General Election makes St. Paul on the road to Damascus look like a mere novice. After what Ernie Bevin might have described as complete "ignoral" of the subject for 18 years, we now have in the Conservative Party a veritable posse of latterday Daniels come to judgment on Lords reform.
Does anyone imagine for one moment that had the Conservative Party won the last election it would have produced proposals for the reform of the House of Lords? Of course not! We know why not. The figures that I have given illustrate why. The present structure of the House admirably suits the Conservative Party. We can be quite certain that if it had formed the Government in 1997 there would have been no question of it considering reform of the House of Lords.
My noble friend the Leader of the House asked whether the Conservative Party had resiled from its defence of the hereditary principle in this House as set out in the 1997 Conservative campaign guide:
"Hereditary Peers bring colour, tradition, youth and a wealth of experience to Parliament. They are links with the customs and traditions that form and shape this country. They also serve an important function in preserving the flexible balance of our constitution".
Several very senior Conservatives in another place no longer seem to hold that view. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, seems to have changed his mind from what we heard earlier. Sadly, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, did not deal with that very important point. The simple question remains: does the Conservative Party still believe in the hereditary principle in the House of Lords as set out in its 1997 campaign guide?
A number of noble Lords commented on the tight timetable, as they put it, proposed for the Royal Commission under its terms of reference. I cannot do better than quote the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who said yesterday,
"First, I well understand the anxiety of those concerned to ensure that the later stages of proposed reform will follow quickly on from those set out in the House of Lords Bill. Although we have a precise and challenging timetable, I shall do my utmost to ensure that we play our full part in ensuring that that happens.
"Secondly, I should like again to set on the record, as I first did during the Statement on the publication of the Government's White Paper, that I believe the commission's terms of reference to be sufficiently wide to enable us to deal comprehensively with all the issues relating to the role, function and composition of this House".—(Official Report, 22/2/99; col. 870.]

1091
Other noble Lords asked why we did not set up the Royal Commission after the election in 1997. As the terms of reference of the Royal Commission make clear, we wanted it to take into account the wider context of the other constitutional reforms that we have put in place such as devolution and the incorporation of human rights into our domestic legislation, and to take account also of our developing relations with the European Union. That simply would not have been possible 20 months ago when the devolution and human rights legislation was not even on the statute book.
It is, of course, for Parliament ultimately to decide on the recommendations of the Royal Commission. As your Lordships are well aware, no government is bound by the conclusions of a Royal Commission. We have deliberately not pre-empted the process of consultation and deliberation by giving an indication at this stage of our preference for the long-term House of Lords. By the same token, we cannot predict that the outcome of the commission's work will be wholly acceptable to the Government. But, obviously, we shall take extremely serious account of all its recommendations and will give careful consideration in our response. There will be no question of ignoring the work of the Royal Commission.
A number of noble Lords asked about the possibility of retaining seats, but not voting. The Government believe it wrong for anyone to be a Member of Parliament on the basis of inheritance alone. That is the principle on which our proposals are based. It may be argued that preventing hereditary Peers from voting removes their ability to defeat the government of the day. However, your Lordships well know the importance of speaking in this House as compared with simply voting. We move to a vote comparatively rarely. Most of the work of this House is done through speaking. For example, we table numerous amendments on government legislation which are never pressed to a vote so issues can be aired. That is a valuable function and I would certainly not wish to see it undermined by a presumption that everything should be pressed to a vote. But it points out how much power will be retained by the hereditary Peers if they retain their right to sit and speak even without the right to vote.
There is the question of club rights. Several noble Lords have commented that the Government are being unnecessarily harsh in proposing that hereditary Peers should lose their right to use the refreshment facilities, the Library and other facilities in the House. I ask noble Lords to look at the realities. Your Lordships' House is not a club, but a Chamber of Parliament. We 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, no longer having any function in the House, should still have the right to the use of those facilities provided by the taxpayer to support the work of Parliament. But if the transitional House itself decided as a concession to extend the use of the facilities to non or former Members that would be entirely a matter for it. Indeed, as Chief Whip I can already detect the first request for a two-day debate in the transitional House.
1092
Are the Parliament Acts available to secure the passage of the reform Bill? The 1911 Act makes its scope very clear. There are special arrangements for money Bills. Bills to extend the life of a Parliament are outside its scope. All other public Bills introduced first in the Commons are subject to its provisions. Since the question of reform of the House of Lords was at the forefront of debate at the time the 1911 Act was passed and the Act's preamble makes explicit reference to further reform of the House of Lords, I find it inconceivable that Parliament would not have made a restriction on the use of the Act's powers for this purpose on the face of the Act if that had been its intention. Since the Act makes no specific provision of this kind, the normal rules for the construction of the Act must be followed and therefore the general provisions of the Act have to apply even to Bills reforming the House of Lords. The 1949 Act merely changed the time for which the House of Lords could delay a measure.
I turn to the question of a retirement age. I thought yesterday's suggestion that the proper retirement age should be 105 a shade ambitious. The Government are proposing no change to the life peerage in the transitional House. Neither a retirement age nor the ability to disclaim a life peerage could be introduced without legislation to amend the Life Peerages Act. The Government have made no such proposals and they could not be implemented without the consent of Parliament. Your Lordships will note that some 86 per cent. of the transitional House would be life Peers reflecting on a proposal for their own demise.
The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, kindly referred to a quotation from a great American judge which I used in a speech in this House in April 1995. I must congratulate the noble Baroness on the assiduity of her research. The quotation came from a ground-breaking speech which I made on the Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995. And I stand by every word I said!
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked what the Government mean by their reference in Chapter 7. paragraph 26, to removing artificial restraints on the management of business. As I explained, these are ideas which the Government suggest the Royal Commission would find it useful to consider. There is always a problem at the beginning of each Session in finding business for your Lordships' House. Conversely, there are frequent complaints about the logjam of legislation we face at the end of each Session. The provisions of the Parliament Act are not the only reason for that problem, but they do contribute to it. We believe that the Royal Commission could usefully look at that issue.
We heard blood-curdling speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Waddington and Lord Glenarthur, regarding safeguards to prevent the Prime Minister flooding the House of Lords and subverting it into passing an Act to extend the life of a Parliament. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, will have listened with interest to those contributions. I find the scenario which the noble Lords outlined extremely

1093
far-fetched. The presence of hereditary Peers makes no difference to the powers of the Prime Minister. With or without them, he has the power to recommend such creations. We know that Lloyd George used them long before there were life Peers. I would inquire whether the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, had the same fears when the party opposite commanded a large majority in both Houses. He was the Home Secretary responsible for constitutional matters. Did he bring his fears to the attention of the Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, at the time? I am sure that unintentionally noble Lords who make that point impugn the constitutional integrity of life Peers. The only threat to flood the House came when the House consisted entirely of hereditary Peers.
There was a question about the possibility of Peers crossing the Floor or dying and thereby altering the parity intended for the transitional House. I accept that Peers may well cross the Floor or, more likely but less fortunately, may pass away. They could do both, I suppose! That is one of the reasons why we presently seek only broad as opposed to exact parity of numbers with the main Opposition party.
There was a question from the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, about what we have in mind in Chapter 7, paragraph 27, about the procedures of the House. As your Lordships' House well knows, the context in which powers are used and the way the powers are used has a significant contribution to make to their effectiveness. If the Royal Commission is making recommendations about powers, it is entirely reasonable for it to indicate how it sees those powers being used. Although I have no knowledge of this and should not wish to speculate, it may be that its proposals in relation to powers may not sit well with our existing procedures. The White Paper acknowledges that the procedures of your Lordships' House are a matter for it to determine and not a matter for the Government.
I must say a few words about the future of the monarchy. Our manifesto made it abundantly clear that we have no plans to replace the monarchy. The arguments against the hereditary principle in connection with the House of Lords simply do not apply to the monarchy. The monarch performs a completely different function in our constitution. It is essential that a monarchy remains totally unconnected with politics. The House of Lords is part of the legislature. It obviously has a relationship with the government of the day and its right and opportunity to make its public comments on the actions of the government. It is inevitably, and despite the presence of the Cross-Bench Peers, a part of the political process. The monarchy, on the other hand, is above and outside politics. It is essential for the proper function of the UK constitution that it should be so and seen to be so. Only a hereditary system will ensure that no potential monarch has a political past. It is worth pointing out that several modern democracies—for example, Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Greece—continue to function with a hereditary monarchy and have no place in the legislature for an hereditary aristocracy.
There are many other points and I obviously cannot deal with them all. However, I wish to make an important point. We have made it clear that we should
1094
be minded to accept the Weatherill amendment if it enabled progress to be made by consensus and without disruption of the Government's programme.
The first threats came from the opposition side when it was suggested that opposition to this Bill could take the form of excessive opposition to other unconnected parts of the Government's programme. It was not this side of the House which coined the phrase "hooligan" in connection with reform. The House has always prided itself on being a self-regulating body. It well knows what forms of opposition are within its rules and what are not. That includes the spirit in which amendments are moved.
The noble Lord, Lord Denham, referred to that in his speech. Perhaps I may put the question back to him. During his 30 years' experience in the Whip's Office, how many times did this House insist more than twice on an amendment against the wishes of another place? As far as I know, since 1968, this House has never, until last Session, insisted more than twice on an amendment. But your Lordships all know what happened to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
We all have a great affection for the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and his bravura displays at the Dispatch Box.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Carter: However, my Lords, listening to him this evening, I did just wonder whether that Channel 4 "Peer of the Year" award had slightly got to him. Listening to him, I could not help remembering Mark Twain's remark about someone preaching like a Baptist on moonshine.
We heard a lot from the noble Lord as the constitutional spokesman. But we still do not know what is the Conservative Party's policy on reform. I have referred already to the eulogy of the hereditary principle in the 1997 campaign guide. As far as I know, there were no proposals in the Conservative manifesto to reform the Lords. We all know what the Conservative Party is against but what does it support? What are its proposals for reform? I give one example. We understand that it supports the Weatherill amendment, although I do not believe that noble Lords opposite have actually said so in this debate.
The noble Lord referred to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill as a bit of a struggle. Every defeat of the Government on that Bill was by the votes of hereditary Peers. The life Peers won every vote on that Bill in both Sessions. I have already referred to the fact that that was the only occasion since 1949 when there was the use of the Parliament Acts on a whipped Bill. We still do not know what is the Conservative Party policy on reform. We have set out our policy clearly. It is clear. We have a Bill to remove the hereditary Peers' right to sit and vote. Have your

1095
Lordships not noticed that? We then propose a transitional House. We have appointed a Royal Commission, followed by a Joint Committee.
Noble Lords: Ha, ha!
Lord Carter: What is "ha, ha" about that? We have appointed a Royal Commission, followed by a Joint Committee which will produce proposals for the final stage of reform. They will be considered by Parliament and, if approved, will be put into place.
In conclusion, as I said at the start of my speech, we have had a full and wide-ranging debate and many differing views have been expressed. I have made it clear that these Benches will not take part in any Division on the Opposition amendment. But, on a positive note, I will set out again the Government's objective for the reform process and I cannot do better than quote from the White Paper. It says,
"The Government wants to see the House of Lords as a modem, fit and effective second Chamber of Parliament for the 21st century".
We believe it can be that: it can be a fully reformed second Chamber and have a vital role in the renewed democracy of Britain.
12.10 a. m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is always such a pleasure to follow the Government Chief Whip—he makes the indefensible sound so reasonable. He has done it many times before and he has done it again this evening.
Anybody who came into this debate yesterday afternoon with a very fixed view as to what future shape the House of Lords should have will undoubtedly have changed that view many times during the course of what has been a fascinating and, at moments, exciting debate. I suspect that it made the job of the Royal Commission considerably more difficult, but I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Wakeham and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, who has sat through so much of this debate.
I believe that we were right to have this debate. As I said in my speech, this was the debate the Government never wanted; the White Paper they never wanted to publish; the Royal Commission they never wished to appoint. But this debate proved how right it was to do it and how right it was to table this amendment.
The amendment is a simple and broadly-based one. It is designed to appeal to as many people in the House as possible. That is why I was so delighted to have the broad support, though I suspect I shall not have the specific support this evening, of the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
Lord Richard: My Lords, with great respect, the noble Lord either has not listened to me—perhaps I was not speaking loudly enough—or he has not understood. I never supported his amendment. Indeed, I specifically argued in my speech for a reduction in the powers of
1096
the Lords when the legitimacy of this House has been put right. How the noble Lord can convert that into what he just said I have no idea.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is the second time in the course of this debate that the noble Lord has put the record straight. But he did say it because I wrote it down; I thought it was important. He said that the aim of the reform should be to "strengthen the second Chamber". My amendment does not even go as far as that. It simply says that the powers of this House should not be reduced.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, was good enough to say that he supported the principle of my amendment but for a technical reason in relation to "take note" Motions, he did not feel able to support it in the Division Lobby. That is up to him.
One thing that I very much welcome is the sight of so many Labour Peers in the House this evening. It is sad that more of them were not around earlier during the course of the debate. They would have found it interesting and may well have learnt much as well. It is also regrettable that we did not hear from them. This was a debate on the future of the House of Lords. It is not about the Bill; it is not about hereditary Peers. It is about the kind of House which they will substantially inherit since there are so few hereditary Peers on their Benches. Yet they have shown a tremendous lack of interest.
This morning in The Times there was a report. written following a substantial survey by that newspaper, about the so-called "working Peers" of the Labour Party. Over the course of the past two days we have witnessed what is a genuine misnomer. They are not working Peers; they are shirking Peers. That is not just a contempt of this House; it is a contempt of Parliament and it is also a contempt of the people who elected the Labour Party.
My amendment is concerned with not reducing the powers of this House any further. I wish to put it to a vote. I very much hope that it will be supported widely on all sides of the House. It is important that this House's voice should be heard. I commend it to the House.
12.14 a. m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents, 193; Not-Contents, 2.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Beloff, L.

Aldington, L.

Belstead, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Biddulph, L.

Ampthill, L.

Biffen, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Birdwood, L.

Annaly, L.

Blackwell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Blaker, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Blatch, B.

Bathurst, E.

Boardman, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Boston, L.

1097

Braybrooke, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Brentford, V.

lddesleigh, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Inglewood, L.

Bnrntisfield, L.

Iveagh, E.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Buscombe, B.

Jopling, L.

Cadman, L.

Kenyon, L.

Caithness, E.

Killearn, L.

Carew, L.

Kimball, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kingsland, L.

Carnock, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Chadlington, L

Kinnoull, E.

Chalfont, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L

Lane of Horsell, L.

Chilver, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Leigh, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Clinton, L.

Liverpool, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cobbold, L.

Luke, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish. L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B

Cranborne, V.

Mancroft, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cross, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dacre, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Mills, V.

De L'lsle, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Denbigh, E.

Monson, L.

Denham, L.

Moran, L.

Denman, L.

Morris, L.

Derwent, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Moynihan, L.

Donegall, M.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dudley, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dundee, E.

Naseby, L.

Dunleath, L.

Nathan, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Newall, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Norrie, L.

Elles, B.

Norton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Exmouth, V.

Onslow, E.

Falmouth, V.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Fookes, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Forbes, L

Palmer, L.

Fortescue, E.

Patten, L.

Gage, V.

Peel, E.

Gainford, L

Pender, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Geddes, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gisborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rawlings, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Reay, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rees, L.

Goschen, V.

Rennell, L.

Gray, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Greenway, L.

Renwick, L.

Haig, E.

Romney, E.

Halifax, E.

St Davids, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

St. Germans, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hemphill, L.

Selsdon, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hesketh, L

Shrewsbury, E.

Higgins, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Holderness, L.

Somerset, D.

HolmPatrick, L.

Soulsby of Swaftham Prior, L.

Home, E.

Stafford,

Hooper. B.

Stewartby, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Strange, B

1098

Strathcarron, L.

Waddington, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Warnock, B.

Sudeley, L.

Weir, V.

Swansea, L.

Westbury, L.

Teviot, L.

Wharton, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wilcox, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Torrington, V.

Willoughby de Eresby, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Wise, L.

Trenchard, V.

Wynford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Young, B.

NOT CONTENTS

Campbell of Alloway, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
12.28 a. m.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Question is that the original Motion, as amended, be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". I think the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Division called.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Tellers for the "Not-Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Contents" have it.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before one o'clock.

  House of Lords Reform
  House of Lords Reform
  Export Promotion by Diplomatic Staff
  Export Promotion by Diplomatic Staff
  Personal Social Services Performance Assessment
  Personal Social Services Performance Assessment
  Farmed Salmon: Sea Lice Treatments
  Farmed Salmon: Sea Lice Treatments
  Bulgaria: Economic Monitoring
  Bulgaria: Economic Monitoring
  Bilateral Aid Allocations
  Bilateral Aid Allocations
  Joint Force 2000
  Joint Force 2000
  Operation Desert Fox
  Operation Desert Fox
  Iraq
  Iraq