Sitting of 9 June 1999

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

Climate Change
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
Mr. David Chaytor: I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on the most important environmental issue of our time. The threats and challenges posed by climate change do not fit comfortably into the conventional time scales of domestic politics: significant changes of policy do not have immediate effects but without such changes we will continue to walk into the unknown, facing the prospect of unprecedented social and environmental disaster in the first half of the next century.
Climate change is an issue that needs to be dealt with urgently, not only because the clock is already ticking but because, as each day goes by, the scale of the problem is steadily increasing. New research on the availability of the world's oil reserves has highlighted the need for urgent action.
I pay tribute to the work of right hon. and hon. Members who have already made outstanding contributions to the politics of climate change. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), as Secretary of State for the Environment, ensured that the implications of climate change were understood by the previous Government.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister ensured that our Government provided international leadership at the Kyoto conference through his tireless work in seeking agreement on the protocol from powerful nations whose natural interests did not automatically coincide.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment is admired by environmentalists both in the United Kingdom and throughout the European Union for his detailed understanding of the wider implications of climate change and his dogged determination to secure the implementation of the necessary policy changes.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) for his work on the issue and in particular for his recent establishment of the all-party globe group—and I congratulate him on his recent election to the Welsh Assembly.
As tomorrow is polling day for the European elections, I pay tribute to the present Conservative Member of the European Parliament for Surrey who, in his capacity as president of Globe International, has ensured that climate change has been widely debated in the European Parliament and in the legislatures of many other countries. Sadly, he is not a candidate in tomorrow's elections.
560
Had he been so, it is difficult to imagine which of the two Conservative parties he would have represented. Offering a choice of two Conservative parties is taking the belief in freedom of choice to remarkable extremes: it is freedom of choice with a vengeance, and I suspect that the emphasis will be very much on the vengeance after tomorrow's elections.
Climate change was first identified as an issue of international political significance at the Rio Earth summit in 1992, as a result of which 174 countries signed the framework convention on climate change, the substance of which allowed for a voluntary target of restoring the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2000.
As a result of the evidence produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, representing the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community, the Kyoto conference of December 1997 established a protocol, including a legal agreement under which the developed countries would reduce their emissions of the six main greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride and nitrous oxide—to 5.2 per cent. below 1990 levels in the period from 2008 to 2012.
The international scientific community concluded that if no action were taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, temperatures would rise by between 1 deg and 3.5 deg by the end of the next century. That statistic will not excite the electorate in an election campaign, but it nevertheless represents the biggest increase in temperature on this planet since the ice age 10,000 years ago.
For those who are sceptical of scientists' ability to make such predictions, I would simply point out that in the past 10 years we have experienced seven of the hottest years since records began in 1860. Climate change is with us now. I repeat that the consensus of the scientific community is that the almost exponential growth in carbon emissions brought about by our burning of fossil fuels throughout the past 200 years, and particularly in the past 100 years, is largely responsible for those temperature increases.
Climate change may not be the most exact term and perhaps we should be speaking of climate instability or climate volatility, because if no action is taken we will experience a dramatic rise in sea levels, by between 15 and 95 cm, as the polar ice caps melt. I calculate that that would result in the loss of virtually the whole of East Anglia and the fenlands, representing about 35 Conservative seats at the last count. I note the presence of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns); his seat is on the list of those that would be flooded.
The whole pattern of the world's weather will change, increasing the likelihood of heatwaves, floods, droughts and storms, and intensifying the process of desertification in certain parts of the world, so that many millions of people will no longer be able to grow their own food.
The availability and distribution of water supplies will change unpredictably, with disastrous consequences for agriculture, and biodiversity will be lost as the habitats of rare and vulnerable creatures are destroyed. The economic costs will be enormous, as many insurance companies are now beginning to realise, and the impoverishment or displacement of whole populations will lead to refugee crises of a kind that the world has not yet experienced.

561
It therefore seems sensible to take the necessary precautions now, to avoid those unpredictable consequences later. I reiterate my recognition of the preparatory work done by the previous Government, and congratulate the present Government not only on the international leadership shown in helping to negotiate the agreement at Kyoto, but on the speed with which policy has been developed.
It is significant that we are now committed not only to the 12.5 per cent. target—our legally binding share of the European Union's Kyoto target—but to our manifesto commitment to a domestic target of a 20 per cent. cut in CO, emissions. To their credit, the Government have moved swiftly in outlining the framework of policies that might achieve that.
The October 1998 consultation paper on climate change was preceded by the White Paper on transport, and followed last month by the White Paper on sustainable development. There have also been important Government statements on renewable energy, the review of energy sources for power generation and the recent consultation paper on fuel poverty.
The recommendations of Lord Marshall's report, which led to the establishment of the climate change levy in the 1999 Budget, as well as other measures in that Budget, will also in time play a significant part in the overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. However, the time for talk is now over; it is time for action and implementation.
In response to the admirable range of measures that the Government have already proposed or implemented, I shall raise a series of further points for consideration. First, it is crucial that the Government make clear the nature and status of the 20 per cent. domestic target. It is not legally binding, but it is politically binding. Our election manifesto said:
"We will lead the fight against global warming, through our target of a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions by the year 2010".
Last month's White Paper on sustainable development talks about moving towards a domestic goal of a 20 per cent. reduction, and I fear that there is a slight shift of emphasis there. We need clarification, because the target will determine the range of future policies not only in the first decade of the next century but beyond. It should now be possible to set interim targets for a Parliament, with strategic targets for the longer term.
Secondly, transport contributes about 23 per cent. of total emissions. The White Paper on integrated transport produced some excellent ideas around which a new consensus on transport policy can be built, but we are waiting for the means to implement many of those ideas. For example, our attitude to traffic growth is crucial, because we need to clarify the precise extent to which we aim not only to reduce the predicted growth in traffic but to reverse it. I welcome recent ministerial statements confirming the intention to achieve a genuine reduction in absolute terms.
Thirdly, the White Paper refers to a target of generating 10 per cent. of electricity from renewables by 2010. Subsequent statements have implied that that may not be quite such a precise target, so I draw the attention of the House to what has already been achieved elsewhere—
562
for example, in Denmark, where 5 per cent. of electricity is already generated from renewables, and a much tougher target of 20 per cent. has been set for 2010.
A recent report by Greenpeace argues the case for the development of an offshore wind industry, which it says could provide 30,000 jobs. The expansion of renewable forms of energy is no longer a question of technological limitation; it is almost entirely a question of political will.
Fourthly, there is the question of energy efficiency. Four private Members' Bills on the subject have come before the House recently. The Energy Efficiency Bill and the Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill received Government support, but were blocked by Opposition Members. We have to ask ourselves how much longer we can endure a system for dealing with private Members' Bills which allows the infantile antics of a single eccentric Back Bencher to block proposals that are widely considered on both sides of the House to be sensible and positive.
I urge the Government to explore every possible means of incorporating the eminently sensible proposals in those two Bills into other legislation at an early stage. I hope also that they will reconsider the Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill in the context of preparing the climate change programme later this year.
I welcome the Government's support for the Fuel Poverty and Energy Conservation Bill, and also the recent consultation paper on fuel poverty. There is an urgent need for co-ordination of all the Government's programmes dealing with fuel poverty and energy efficiency along the lines proposed in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation (Fifteen Year Programme) Bill. It may not be possible at this stage to propose such an ambitious programme, but the fact remains that energy efficiency programmes produce long-term savings after an initial short-term investment. Moreover, where they are specifically designed to alleviate fuel poverty, such programmes emphasise the point that the policies of social justice and the policies of environmental protection are in most cases two sides of the same coin.
Before leaving the subject of energy efficiency, I must point out the continuing anomaly whereby VAT is still levied on most energy-efficient materials. It is particularly important that the Government seek to extend the very welcome VAT exemption that they have already introduced for the home energy efficiency scheme to all energy-saving materials.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend has been very candid and well informed in speaking to the House, but how can we duck the question that to achieve those objectives, nuclear capacity will be needed?
Mr. Chaytor: If over the past 50 years a fraction of the public investment that has been made in developing nuclear energy had been applied to developing renewable energy and energy conservation, we would not now need nuclear energy. I think that there is a future role for nuclear energy, but all kinds of questions surround that role, and I do not think that it will be as large as the role that nuclear power now plays. I repeat that at the moment, for reasons of safety and sustainability, I do not believe that there is a strong argument for an expansion of nuclear power.
On the domestic front, the climate change levy is one of the most important economic instruments at the Government's disposal. My right hon. Friend the

563
Chancellor is to be congratulated on the way in which he and Lord Marshall have successfully developed a consensus behind the concept of the levy. That is not to deny that there are many issues still to be resolved. There will be some lively discussions between the Treasury and the different industrial sectors before agreement is finally reached.
In that context, I draw attention to renewables, to combined heat and power, to the recycling of the revenue from the levy into energy efficiency, and to the need to protect small businesses. If the levy is to be generally accepted as a sensible measure, it must operate with consistency. It would be inconsistent if renewable forms of electricity were subject to the levy to the same extent as other forms, as that would undermine the part of the industry that, by definition, is contributing to the solution rather than causing the problem. A similar case can be made for combined heat and power because of the additional efficiency of CHP plants, although clearly such plants generate significant emissions.
The Government have been at pains to stress the revenue neutrality of the whole operation of recycling revenues. Some £50 million has been set aside for investment in energy efficiency schemes, and there is a strong case for increasing that allocation. It would be self-defeating if the demand for investment in energy efficiency schemes could not be met because of arbitrary limits on the share of climate change levy revenues to be recycled. In the long run, of course, recycling the revenues into energy efficiency could be more productive than simply providing national insurance rebates. However, the key aim underlying the levy must be to deliver whatever form of recycling of revenues will achieve the most effective reduction in CO2 emissions.
Although the domestic programme is important, when the Government draw up their final strategy, we must accept that whatever they can achieve domestically depends on international developments. However radical our local programme in this country might be, global climate change will not be halted or even slowed down without international agreement. In no other context is the limitation of the power of the nation state in today's inter-dependent world more obvious, or the need for international co-operation through international institutions more important.
Therefore, I wish to comment on the state of negotiations on the Kyoto protocol, which will be enforced only when the signatory nations choose to ratify it. Currently, there is a problem with the position of the United States and of the major blocs representing the developing countries. The Americans will not agree to reduce emissions unless the Chinese and others agree to a reciprocal reduction, while the developing countries do not see why they should have to prejudice the chance of economic growth when the problem of climate change has been created by emissions from the industrial countries. It is crucial that we find a way forward to which the Americans, the Chinese, the Indians and the African nations can agree.
In many analysts' opinion, a policy of contraction and convergence provides the way out of the logjam. Under such a policy, each nation would be allocated a quota of emissions based on population, and set in the context of agreed environmental limits. Over time, industrial nations would be required gradually to reduce emissions, while
564
developing countries would be permitted gradually to increase theirs, until a point was reached at which the emissions quotas of all countries were relatively equal.
That seems to provide the only practical and principled resolution of the conflicting interests of the developed world and the developing world, based on equal rights for all human beings. I urge the Government to present the case for contraction and convergence as a realistic means of facilitating the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. I commend the research conducted by the Global Commons Institute in developing that model.
Another issue related to the Kyoto protocol has to do with the so-called flexibility mechanisms, and in particular with the use of emissions trading, whereby countries can buy pollution credits from other countries. Realistically, that is a necessary device to enable the United States to ratify the protocol and achieve some progress in reducing emissions. However, unless a framework of contraction and convergence is agreed, there remains the problem of the proportion of any country's total emission reductions that can be achieved through emissions trading. Above a specific figure—50 per cent., for example—it would be unlikely that any global emissions reduction would be achieved, as countries would merely buy and sell each other's permissions to emit. Emissions trading can provide an incentive to reduce emissions, but it could also be a device to defer indefinitely the reduction of emissions. To avoid the latter possibility, it is essential that a policy of contraction and convergence is established in advance of agreeing an emissions trading regime.
I have spoken widely about the domestic and international dimensions of the policy changes needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Some people will say that it is an unnecessarily complex, bureaucratic and cumbersome set of responses to a single scientific assertion—that accumulated carbon deposits are the direct cause of climate change—and ask what would happen if that theory were to be disproved in a few years' time.
My answer would be simple. Even if the collective wisdom of the intergovernmental panel on climate change were subsequently to be disproved, and even if the political judgment of almost every nation in the world were to be reversed, it would still make absolute sense to start now to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels because, by definition, they will not last for ever. If sustainable development means anything, it surely means that we do not leave the next generation without the means to power factories or heat homes, schools or hospitals.
The finite nature of fossil fuels is most evident with oil. Industrial progress and economic growth in the 20th century have been built on the assumption of infinite supplies of cheap and accessible oil. Empires have been built on the back of cheap oil, and wars fought to maintain its supply. As older oil fields dried up, new ones were discovered and it was assumed that the process would continue indefinitely.
Until recently, it was assumed that current reserves of oil would be plentiful until about 2050. Unfortunately, some of the latest research—and I refer to the work of Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere, published in the past few months—indicates that that assumption was based on inaccurate figures generated by a dubious methodology that stemmed from the need of oil companies and

565
oil-producing nations artificially to inflate their reserves for their own political and economic purposes. Global oil production is now forecast to peak before 2010.
There are two consequences of that. First, it is inevitable that the price of crude oil will start to rise, as has happened quite dramatically in the past few months. Secondly, given that North sea production will start to peak even earlier, probably within the next two years, in the early years of the next century the industrialised world will once again be largely dependent on oil from the middle east. Therefore, the geopolitics of the next century will allow only two scenarios: either we start now drastically to reduce our consumption of oil through energy conservation, the exploitation of renewable forms of energy and the development of alternative sources of fuel, or we find ourselves involved in a semi-permanent conflict with Iraq—or another country—throughout the early years of the next century.
To avoid the worst effects of climate change and the possibility of future military conflicts fought in a vain attempt to continue the illusion of infinite supplies of cheap oil, we must initiate now a radical programme of energy conservation, renewables and the development of alternative sources of fuels.
Mr. David Drew: I am sorry that I missed the very start of my hon. Friend's speech, but he has concentrated on the role of producers of energy. Will he comment on the role of consumers? In my constituency, consumers have attempted to form a co-operative so that they can buy renewable energies. Is that not a valuable addition to the movement away from our traditional treatment of our climate?
Mr. Chaytor: That is an extremely important point. People's willingness to act depends on the extent to which they understand the scale of the problem, which in turn depends on the extent to which the Government are prepared to introduce a significant programme of political education on these matters. My gut feeling is that many people in Britain have a general understanding that something called global warming is taking place, but that they have not yet understood fully the scale of the problem. There is a major responsibility on the Government and industry not to shy away from the reality of the situation. I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. I know that many similar bottom-up schemes exist elsewhere in the country, where people understand the need to take action at local level.
Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is high time that we developed a sensible policy towards Iraq, which probably has the largest oil reserves in the world?
Mr. Chaytor: I endorse my hon. Friend's comment.
The time has come for us to see the Government's climate change programme in action. I have a number of questions for my hon. Friend the Minister, in the hope that he will be able to clarify certain matters.
First, will he confirm that the reference to the domestic target for CO2 reductions included in the White Paper on sustainable development does not represent a shift in the Government's position away from the general election
566
manifesto commitment and from the Prime Minister's statement? Are we still committed to the 20 per cent. target and will the climate change programme include a clear statement showing how we can achieve it? Secondly, will the Government adopt the underlying principles of the contraction and convergence model as the basis for future international negotiations as they seek both to ratify the Kyoto protocol and to achieve international agreement for the years beyond 2010?
Thirdly, will the Minister tell us the latest thinking on the most effective means of recycling revenues from the climate change levy? How will it be used to avoid harming the development of combined heat and power and a viable renewable energy industry? Fourthly, does he accept recent research by Colin Campbell and others that has been adopted in the International Energy Agency's planning assumptions? Does he accept that that creates added impetus for urgent action for a planned and phased withdrawal from our over-dependence on fossil fuels?
It is to the enormous credit of the Government that they—far more than any previous Government—have committed themselves to the objective of sustainable development that will meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The way in which the Government respond to the threats and challenges posed by climate change, and the many difficult decisions that will need to be taken over coming years and months, will present the major test of how successfully they have achieved their objective.
10.1 am
Mr. Peter Brooke: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) for making this debate possible. I am delighted to be able to speak briefly. I am not a scientist and it is five years since I last spoke in a science debate. I doubt whether non-scientists should speak in science debates more than once in a lustrum. I may be the sole survivor in the House of a seminar on climate change that was mounted by the then Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, 10 years ago at 12 Downing street. The sole American observer present said at the seminar's conclusion that he doubted whether any other country could have assembled as much political authority and scientific knowledge in a single room.
The hon. Gentleman issued a valuable brief in advance of his debate and I am grateful to him, although I do not intend to speak on that brief. I wish to telegraph a series of largely unrelated points. Winding-up speeches may follow the example of Burke, for whom all the arguments were marshalled in advance like soldiers, although that is generally more suitable for opening speeches. Alternatively, they may follow the example of Fox, who could extemporise at the drop of a hat and genuinely respond to a debate. The Government contain winding-up speakers of both types. On the whole, Foxes make better winding-up speakers and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions,

567
the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), with whom I frequently discuss matters on a wide variety of subjects, will follow the example of Fox.
Mr. Dalyell: For the benefit of the ignorant among us, would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what a lustrum is?
Mr. Brooke: I hesitate to seek to educate the hon. Gentleman, of whom I am very fond, but I said that I had spoken once in five years on science. A lustrum is a period of five years. It is the matching word for decade.
What I have said about wind-up speeches is relevant to environmental change, a subject on which at the end of conferences and debates policy makers from all countries tend to sound as if they had prepared their concluding remarks in advance and then fitted the facts of the conference around them. I said that I would telegraph some points. First, integrated assessments are all very well, but they are only as good as the sum of their parts. Secondly, the buying of surplus from poorer countries—what treaties call flexibility—may not prompt investment by rich countries in energy saving.
Thirdly, the most ambitious targets for energy saving are being set by countries, including the United Kingdom, that have the lowest public sector expenditure on research and development in this area. We had quite high public sector expenditure on R and D during the 1970s, when there was the oil threat, but it has receded. The countries that invest the most in public sector R and D, such as Japan, may have identified a global commercial opportunity that underlies that investment.
Fourthly, new energy sources are grand, but they may bring ancillary problems. For example, as much solar energy could be created in Egypt in a space one two-hundredths of the area covered by the Aswan dam and its hinterland, but the storage problem would have to be solved. There is a moral lesson there: we lost out on the on-land wind issue in the UK seven years ago because the environmental factors were not embraced at the same time as the technology.
Fifthly, 95 per cent. of population growth in the next generation will be in cities. Sixthly, we are confronted by massive problems of biological invasion through trade, air passengers, military mobilisation and mail. Some 54 million air passengers enter the United States, and 180,000 are biologically infested. Of the 80 million Mexican road passengers, 201,000 are biologically infested. Of 40 million Mexican foot passengers, 55,000 are infested. Of 95 million road passengers from Canada, 322,000 are biologically infested. Four per cent. of parcel mail is infested.
Air passenger growth of 15 per cent. means that passengers may be a much larger problem than freight, although the Asian long-haul—I mean longhorn—beetle, which is the greatest current threat in the UK, enters in wooden pallets that must be replaced by plastic. The Mediterranean fruit fly has already been eradicated 17 times in California at a cost of $111 million, but climate change can alter the entire global map of Mediterranean fruit fly incidence.
Seventhly, cloud distribution, with its uncertainties, could have twice the impact of CO2. We do not yet understand the basic science and we need much more understanding of water vapour in cloud water feedback. Eighthly, few ecological experiments are taking place.
568
The soil experiments in the ecotron under the auspices of the National Environmental Research Council are demonstrating how much we still have to learn. I do not want to enter the debate on soil and genetically modified foods, but soil is a Cinderella and I believe that we have no soil legislation. The ecotron experiments show how effects vary markedly depending on whether the CO2 is ambient or elevated.
Finally, let me mention three unrelated public policy issues that emphasise the complexity and consequences of these matters. First, the Master of the Rolls is interested in the establishment of an environmental court. It may be imagined that such a court could survive with a handful of environmental experts, but a minimum of a dozen would be required.
Secondly, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs will meet in private this afternoon to discuss the problem of fuel smuggling into Northern Ireland. The facts are stark. The terms of Kyoto mean that the UK has a reduction target of 12.5 per cent., while the European Union average is 8 per cent. The Republic of Ireland need not reduce at all, but can increase by 13 per cent., making a 25 per cent. difference between the Irish and ourselves. It is no wonder that there is so massive a discrepancy between fuel taxes in the two jurisdictions.
Smuggling is a natural consequence, and law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland are being turned into law-breakers unless they wish to go out of business. I say gently to the Minister that the Government's response currently verges on the casual as the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Office seem to seek to distance themselves from the predicament, implying that the problem is the other Department's responsibility. So much for joined-up Government.
My third point is a related tax matter. We are all going to be deluged soon with the views of industries on the climate levy. I have not been subjected to any briefings yet, but I suspect that one conclusion that will emerge is that there is a limit to how far industry can carry that particular freight. Although the Government are reluctant to tax us as individuals, if they wish to change behaviour, they will have to consider taxing individuals at last.
Finally, I pay tribute to Imperial college in my constituency, which has assembled 120 academic staff dealing with such issues, with more than 1,000 students, of whom more than half are postgraduate. MSc students can take a shot at addressing the integrated problems of a green society in 2050 after 10 elaborate panel sessions. As an Oxonian, I am necessarily sad that Imperial has temporarily overtaken Oxford as a university; but as its constituency Member I am intensely proud of its contribution, some of which was generously made to me in preparation for this debate.
10.11 am
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: It is always a delight to follow the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), whose contributions are immensely enjoyable. As a scientist, I wish that all non-scientists were as well informed as him. I shall go to my bed tonight wiser for knowing what a lustrum is.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) for making this debate possible. I congratulate him on his remarks with almost all of which I agreed. The one with which I did not agree I shall deal with later. I have four brief points.

569
First, climate change is happening. It does not matter why but it is. One might argue that it is due to cyclical effects or greenhouse gases. One might be a proponent of chaos theory and believe that it is caused by a butterfly flapping its wings a hundred years ago, but the fact is that it is inevitable and it will affect us, so we had better start planning for its effects over at least the next two generations. By planning, I mean starting to adapt for the inevitable changes. Clinicians, architects, planners and agriculturalists must get involved in the debate to work out the shape of the world in the next 50 years. Politicians and aid workers must focus on the inevitable changes around the world.
Secondly, the weight of the evidence suggests that greenhouse gas production is linked to the fact of climate change. When they see an animal squashed in the road, most people assume that it was hit by a car without needing to see the car doing the damage. Similarly, the weight of the evidence suggests that greenhouse gases are producing climate change. The wise man, or wise politician, therefore starts to take account of that fact and to plan practical strategies for dealing with it. The American auto industry can object as much as it likes; it can argue that climate change is caused by cyclical effects if it wishes—but the weight of evidence suggests that we should address the issue.
Thirdly, the public like to talk about green issues and watch green documentaries. They may even be prepared to recycle a few bottles and newspapers, but they have shown little sign of being seriously prepared to change their behaviour to address green issues. The previous Government introduced the fuel escalator, which this Government have rightly continued. I have asked a series of parliamentary questions and dug some information out of the Library on car use, car ownership, miles driven and petrol consumption over the past 10 years. There is not the slightest evidence that the public have changed their driving or petrol consumption habits one iota over that time. There is no correlation with price or the highlighting of green issues in the political arena. According to the evidence in the public domain, not one fewer gallon of petrol has been consumed, not a mile fewer driven and not one lower fuel consumption car bought.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) was with me in America a year ago. Does the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) agree that the American approach, of producing cleaner cars, is the way forward because taxes have not persuaded people not to drive?
Dr. Ladyman: I agree. Cleaner cars are vital and must be encouraged. I recommend that the Minister urgently consider the work on fuel cells of the company Zevco, not least because it has promised to produce them in my constituency if its developments are successful. The Government will have to change from taxes such as road fuel duty to more direct and huge taxes on dirty cars with high petrol consumption to force people to buy smaller, more economical cars. We must consider road charges because if people can see a more direct link between the money that goes out of their pockets and the miles that they drive, they may be more willing to take account of such issues.
570
Fourthly, given that climate change is happening, that we believe that greenhouse gases are involved and that the public are unwilling to change their habits, we must come up with more practical strategies to reduce greenhouse gas production. I have reached my difference with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North. I believe that one of the most practical things that we can do is to increase our nuclear energy production. I can see no alternative. No single change that we could make could so dramatically reduce the amount of carbon dioxide going into the air.
Mr. Chaytor: If the debate is shifting towards the role of nuclear power in responding to climate change, how does my hon. Friend propose that the additional waste that would be produced by its expansion be handled, given that we have not got a clue what to do with the mountains of waste generated over the past 40 years?
Dr. Ladyman: I disagree with my hon. Friend's last point. We have got a clue. Scientists have suggested a range of waste strategies but the nature of the debate has not allowed us to acknowledge the fact that safe tools are available if we have the political will to use them. A kilowatt of nuclear energy produces 4g of carbon dioxide, but a kilowatt of gas energy 446g, of oil energy 818g, and of coal energy 955g.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: As an engineer—mechanical, electrical and civil—I have a vested interest in my hon. Friend's observations. The folly of his argument is to pretend that emissions resulting from nuclear energy justify expansion of the industry. That is misleading, because one of the problems that we are struggling with is the life cycle of the energies available. Life cycle analysis of nuclear energy production shows that its problems far exceed anything from renewable forms of energy. To take only one aspect or benefit of an industry is to mislead the House as to the absolute benefit of that source.
Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments, but the practical benefits and possibilities of using renewable energies are exaggerated. For example, we can calculate the amount of energy that can be extracted from the wind—even whether we can extract 100 per cent. of it—and work out how many wind generators we would need to produce a certain amount of energy. We know what the polluting effects of tidal energy are. If one takes the energy out of the tides, the sediment settles and that can be as polluting to marine life as any oil slick. There are practical limitations to renewable energies.
I put it to my hon. Friends that a 10 per cent. increase—from the current 30 per cent. to 40 per cent.—in the amount of energy that we generate from nuclear power would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide entering our atmosphere in the UK by about 20 million tonnes a year. That would meet our Kyoto guidelines in one fell swoop. We cannot ignore that possibility. However, I do not propose that we act immediately and that we start tomorrow and force it on the public.
Mr. Chaytor: In relation to that theoretical 10 per cent. increase in nuclear energy and its impact on the reduction

571
of emissions, has my hon. Friend calculated how much that 10 per cent. increase would add to our existing plutonium stockpile?
Dr. Ladyman: I have not made that calculation.
Mr. Dalyell: Is not the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) another reason why the Government should reply to the House of Lords recommendation that there should be an engineered deep repository? In his winding-up speech, perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister could refer to the House of Lords recommendation and to what the Government's attitude is likely to be—at least in respect of timing.
Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the issues on which we need an answer.
However, I do not propose forcing matters on the public. I propose that we open our minds to the possibility that a solution is ready for practical implementation. We should start to have a full debate with the public on that issue. We need unprecedented openness from the industry and from scientists. As someone who began his scientific career working on a reactor site and who also did his postgraduate degree on a reactor site, I have a familiarity with the industry that other right hon. and hon. Members may not have.
When I did my research, I worked seven days a week-like most PhD students. I used to climb happily over the security fence and work alone in the reactor hall and the laboratories—that was in the early 1970s, which were simpler times. My student friends used to do the same. We knew what we were doing and felt confident about it and confident about the technology. People who work in the industry have that degree of familiarity and find it difficult to understand why other people cannot see the benefits that are available from it.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that most people are quite happy to sail 20 miles across the channel, or travel under it, to France, where there are about 20 nuclear sites? The people of France are not suffering any devastating down side from that; indeed, they are probably doing rather well for cheap energy.
Dr. Ladyman: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. My constituents may not realise that they live about 25 miles over the water from those reactors. So far, they have fortunately suffered no side effects.
I want that degree of familiarity with the debate and the issues to register more widely in the public domain. We could then make a sensible and objective decision as to whether we want to increase nuclear power as a percentage of our overall energy strategy. I offer that idea to the Minister as one suggestion for what we might do. Let us start talking again about that issue and put it back on the agenda. Let us consider whether it can be part of the package of measures that we introduce in the future.
10.24 am
Mr. Andrew Stunell: The debate has been extremely interesting. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on initiating it on this timely occasion. He put a number of questions that
572
he hoped that the Minister would answer when he winds up. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) hoped that the Minister would ad lib a bit in order to respond properly to the debate. Some additional matters have now been brought to the Minister's attention to which I hope that he will be able to respond, because some significant issues have been raised. Perhaps we need to continue the debate in a wider context, as the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) requested.
Hon. Members who have spoken so far seem to agree that climate change is real, dangerous and preventable—or at least containable. Liberal Democrats very much welcome the Government's input to the international scene—for example, at the Kyoto and Buenos Aires conferences and in the plethora of reviews and consultation documents that have been published since. There have been so many reviews that, as an energy spokesman, one needs a special wheelbarrow to carry them around in.
Although I welcome those reviews, I point out that the missing element is any consequence from them, so I add a further question to those that have already been put to the Minister: how soon can we expect real policy initiatives and changes to be introduced to implement the ideas in the reviews? I remind the Minister that the target for emissions was to achieve a reduction by 2010 on the baseline of 1990. We are now halfway through that period and, if we need legislation—as we undoubtedly will—together with new taxes, new instructions to the regulators and a public information campaign, all those will take time. Time is leaking away and the opportunities to reach even the legal target—never mind the Labour manifesto target—are becoming harder to achieve.
In some ways the Government have gone the wrong way since they began to take action on climate change. They have slowed down the dash for gas in electricity generation. That means that the rate at which we are making carbon emissions savings has slowed down and will slow down more. The Government have cut value added tax on domestic fuel; that has the consequence that more people—especially those in low-income households—will be able to afford to burn more fuel. Indeed, that is why the cut was made. One can well understand why that was done; I welcome action to relieve fuel poverty. However, the Government have not, at the same time, reduced VAT on insulation and other technologies that could prevent the wasteful consumption of fuel.
The Government have talked about an integrated transport policy, but we understand from the Deputy Prime Minister that there is no time in the legislative timetable to introduce such a policy. At present, there is no money for that. As the hon. Member for Bury, North pointed out, the Government have stood idly by while private Members' Bills that could have helped have been blocked. In the case of the Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill, the Government offered active spoken support, but they rejected the Bill.
I urge the Government to consider three sectors in which we need to make progress. The first is traffic and transport, which contribute about one quarter of the carbon emissions in this country. It is good to hear that, at speaking engagements throughout the country, the Minister for the Environment and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions continue

573
to express a commitment to road traffic reduction—that is, an absolute reduction in road traffic. However, in the House, the words have been more woolly and imprecise. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will be able to say that what was in the Labour party's manifesto and what Ministers say in the country to sympathetic audiences about an absolute reduction in road traffic remain the Government's commitment. I hope that we shall hear that said clearly in the House.
One of the paradoxes of the debate on climate change is that it focuses to such an extent on transport and traffic, when such factors contribute only one quarter of the UK's carbon emissions. We spend much time worrying about traffic taxes, road pricing and similar measures when we know not only that such measures are unpopular with the public, as the hon. Member for South Thanet indicated, but that they are unlikely to be effective. However, there is little political debate or policy preparation on other major sources of carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom.
Chief among those is electricity generation, which is responsible for a greater proportion of carbon dioxide emissions in this country than traffic—some 30 per cent. I urge the Minister to produce plans and a timetable for a comprehensive energy policy. In the context of the renewables review, I have submitted evidence to the Department of Trade and Industry on the way in which I believe we should proceed. I shall spend a couple of minutes detailing that approach and exploring the "nuclear versus the rest" debate, which has been aired this morning.
We have to develop a strong conservation option: we must stop wasting power and electricity. Such a policy is feasible and the Government should set a target that looks further ahead than 2010. Much of the target setting to 2010 consists of a push here and a squeeze there without any fundamental changes being contemplated. The assumption appears to be that, come 2010, we will reach a plateau beyond which it is not necessary to go; but in fact, after 2010, we shall have to take accelerating and increasingly stiff measures to speed up carbon reduction—which means that we need to develop a strong conservation option.
We have to stabilise and then reduce overall energy use—for example, the use of electric power—while retaining the country's competitiveness and the quality of life of our population. There is nothing difficult about that—we need only apply existing technologies and techniques. Many technical assessments state that half the energy used in the domestic sector is wasted and could be saved by the application of simple, state-of-the-art and currently available measures. Were we to reduce domestic energy consumption by 50 per cent., we would achieve more than could be achieved through the nuclear option.
In addition to conservation, which by 2050 could result in a reduction to only about 70 per cent. of current electricity consumption while maintaining competitiveness and fully implementing any new technology that can be dreamt of, we have to develop a strong renewables option. Using existing, known technologies, we could reach 25 per cent. of electricity generation by use of renewables by 2020, and 50 per cent. by 2050. We should try to achieve that.
574
We should look at the international scene and learn from other countries that are ahead of us in this respect—countries that currently export renewables technology. Japan has already been mentioned, but I shall refer to Denmark, which supplies 60 per cent. of the world's wind turbine market, thereby enabling both the generation of electricity from renewable sources internationally and the creation of jobs in Denmark. Countries in the developing world, such as China and India, will use increasing amounts of energy, but supplies of coal and oil are not inexhaustible and nor is the atmosphere. Such countries already invest significant sums in renewables: my information is that China already spends more on renewables than the whole of western Europe. A strong indigenous renewables industry would not only be able to exploit such wide open markets, but would help us to achieve our domestic targets.
Dr. Ladyman: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's argument in respect of renewables, but are not his figures on potential energy consumption in 2010 based on the assumption that, in 2010, we shall be producing the same sort of things as we produce today, but doing so more efficiently? Is it not true that neither he, nor I, nor anyone else can predict the shape of industry in 2010, what sorts of things we shall be producing, or whether the processes of producing those things will consume large amounts of energy?
Mr. Stunell: Yes, I entirely agree—in this area of policy, almost nothing is predictable from decade to decade. For example, 15 years ago, no one would have predicted that gas would become the preferred fuel for electricity generation. The circumstances might change in future, but even within the existing decision-making framework, technologies are available that could contribute to a solution.
In any case, I suspect that we will all be living in houses, not only in 2010, but in 2050, which is the time scale I am envisaging. There are savings there to be made in the domestic sector, no matter how many computers or unimaginable electronic devices people have. If we act along the lines that I have set out and achieve 50 per cent. of electricity production through renewables, then instead of producing the current annual total of 42 million tonnes of carbon emissions from electricity generation, we could get that figure down to about 10 million tonnes a year. We should be trying to achieve that.
I am not sure whether this is the right debate to discuss the nuclear option, its feasibility and viability. However, I should like to echo the point made by the hon. Member for Bury, North—that for 20 or 30 years the nuclear industry was given every pound it wanted for research and development in the search for the perfect, cheap fuel that would save civilisation. That the industry failed to find that fuel is at least open for discussion. Had similar sums been invested in other technologies, we might be in a better position today.
The remarks made by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster about wind power and the environment were absolutely true, but it must be emphasised that every energy-generating technology, including the existing electricity generation and distribution network, has an environmental impact of some sort. There are about 100,000 steel electricity pylons in this country; temporarily disregarding the engineering

575
or the science of doing so, by putting a 1 MW wind turbine on each pylon, we could generate three times this country's current energy consumption. Even though we might have stopped noticing the environmental impact of current technologies, it does not mean that impact does not exist.
I hope the Minister will tell us today that the Government are going to be bold: that at the hard end they will examine taxation and legislation, that at the soft end they will consider regulation and information, and that they will work hard to change popular culture. I am far more optimistic about our ability to change popular culture than the hon. Member for South Thanet. Everybody now wears a seat belt, not because that is the law, but because popular culture has accepted the wearing of seat belts; and everyone is now so keen to recycle paper that the market is permanently swamped and we cannot get rid of the stuff. Once people accept that doing something is good, it can catch on remarkably quickly.
We need regulation and we must ensure that new energy supply companies have strong rules. For example, it would be good if ESCOs administered home MOTs for energy wastage, or if they were required to provide two-way meters so that micro-renewables could be applied at point of use. Many things could be done and in my evidence to the renewables review I made some suggestions to the Government.
I hope that the Government will give an assurance that they will support private Members' legislation that is neutral and has a low fiscal impact. I also hope that the Government will introduce a real carbon tax and reinvest that money in renewables and conservation. They should also get the regulators to impress on energy companies the need for conservation and renewables and should work with others to inform the public and to change popular culture. The debate has raised several questions and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of them at least.
10.40 am
Mr. Simon Burns: I thank the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this important issue and for instigating an intelligent and thought-provoking debate. In this country, we are fortunate that the environment, and the specific issue of climate change, are high up the political agenda, unlike in certain other countries. That is due originally to a speech by Baroness Thatcher in the late 1980s, to the work of my right hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) at the Rio summit, and—in fairness—to the efforts of this Government, through the work of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment in Kyoto and in Buenos Aires.
Some criticisms have been made that we hear much rhetoric and less action, and they were echoed modestly today by some hon. Members. While reviews and consultation are important, it is time—after two years in government—for action. No doubt the Minister will be able to elaborate on the Government's plans for the next two years.
The policies on climate change of the previous Government and of this Government have focused on prevention. They have set targets for reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, and that is welcome.
576
Indeed, the Government in their manifesto went beyond the requirements to which we signed up in Kyoto, and it will be interesting to hear the Minister's response to the questions from the hon. Members for Bury, North and for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) about a possible shift in the 20 per cent. target.
I wish to raise the issue of adaptation, which is as important as prevention but does not figure as much in the public mind. We could take three approaches to the catastrophic problem facing our planet. We could accept the changes and take no action, but no one in his right mind is prepared to be complacent and take that approach. I have already mentioned the prevention approach, which the previous Government and this Government have sought to undertake through our international commitments and by encouraging other nations to play their part.
Reference has also been made to the United States. I welcome the fact that the US Government had a more positive approach at Buenos Aires, but I have serious misgivings because the US Government are not the US Congress. Any hon. Members who have had dealings with American Congressmen will probably have felt that they were dealing with Neanderthals when it came to the question of climate change and its environmental impact. That is more to do with internal domestic politics in the districts of those Congressmen, who are not prepared to show the courage that Governments in this country have shown in the past decade, and more must be done in that area.
The third approach is the adaptation of human and natural systems to protect society and individuals from the impact of what is happening. The 1996 climate change impacts review group report contains several key responses, and more should be done to ensure that we can adapt to living in a greenhouse world. We must develop more ability to cope with extreme weather-related events, such as storms, floods, landslides and the erosion of our coasts. We must ensure that we have a cohesive policy for managing agriculture to respond to the changing conditions.
It is also crucial to safeguard the public against disease, heatstroke, food poisoning and tanning, with all the problems the latter causes for skin, such as cancer. We must ensure maximum conservation of water resources, especially in the south-east of this country, and we must encourage more exciting and innovative approaches to construction and urban design to minimise the effects of increased temperatures, higher wind speeds and flooding, and to improve energy conservation and the warmth of homes.
Several hon. Members rightly drew attention to the four relevant private Members' Bills before the House. I fully support the ethos behind those Bills and I hope that they will reach the statute book, if necessary through the use of Government time. Energy efficiency, the reduction—preferably the abolition—of fuel poverty, combined heat and light and, as many hon. Members have mentioned, renewable sources of energy are all important. I thank the hon. Member for Bury, North again for what has been, for the House of Commons, a very intelligent debate.
10.48 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member

577
for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on securing this debate on a subject that, as he emphasised, is probably the most important environmental issue facing the world today, and on the knowledgeable and skilful way in which he presented the issues. He demonstrated clearly why he is widely recognised as having great expertise on this subject.
I shall begin by making a few general points about the action the Government are taking to tackle the threat of climate change and then I shall respond briefly to some of the points that have been raised this morning. I acknowledge the approach of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) in emphasising the quality of this debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown a serious and intelligent approach to the issue. My only difficulty is that the complexity and scale of the issues that have been raised will make it impossible for me to do justice to them in just over 10 minutes. I shall do my best, however.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) challenged me to adopt a Fox approach rather than a Burke approach. I am delighted to hear him supporting the radical rather than the Conservative, and I will do my best. As he will recognise, because he was a Minister for many years dealing with issues of huge importance, certain subjects must be put on the record clearly without extemporising to the degree that some hon. Members would like.
I loved the right hon. Gentleman's references to the problems created by the growth of air traffic and the pests that can now travel from one country to another. He made a delightful slip of the tongue when he referred not to the longhorn beetle but to the long-haul beetle—which is a further illustration of the problem. I noted also the right hon. Gentleman's tribute to Imperial college and his slight ambivalence at the fact that its rising academic success has meant that it has surpassed the record of his former university. I am delighted to inform the House that my former university, Cambridge, remains ahead of both Imperial college and Oxford university and is renowned in the field of science.
Scientific evidence on the rate of climate change is becoming clearer all the time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North emphasised, records show that, globally, seven of the past 10 years have been the hottest since records began in 1860. Global surface temperatures are increasing at a rate that will exceed anything that has been seen since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. The world's most authoritative scientists on the intergovernmental panel on climate change have concluded that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on the global climate. There is no doubt that it is getting warmer and there is also no doubt that man-made emissions are contributing to that rise in temperature. This means that, unless we act now, we can expect more flooding, more severe winter gales, more storms and more droughts. The human, social and economic costs could be extremely severe.
The Government have pledged to do what we can to ensure that the impact of climate change is reduced as much as possible. We are playing a leading role in international negotiations, and I thank hon. Members on
578
both sides of the House for acknowledging the Government' s attempts to work with all other countries in this field to achieve satisfactory international agreements.
The Rio earth summit in 1992 demonstrated an international consensus on the need to act, when 154 countries signed the United Nations framework convention on climate change. In Kyoto in 1997, industrialised countries went further, agreeing legally binding targets for cutting emissions of greenhouse gases. That was an important and historic step. Of course, we must now move from agreement to implementation. International negotiations are focused on working up the rules and procedures needed for the effective implementation of the Kyoto protocol.
In Buenos Aires last November, the parties agreed a detailed work programme—the Buenos Aires action plan—that sets out all the issues that still need to be resolved. They include: the design of the "Kyoto mechanisms"; the definition of guidelines for reporting emissions and monitoring compliance; and procedures for addressing cases of non-compliance. The United Kingdom is keen to ensure that we make real progress on all those issues and that the negotiations do not get bogged down in a sterile debate between developed and developing countries.
My hon. Friend raised the difficult and important issue of contraction and convergence. It is an interesting idea, but at Buenos Aires neither the developed nor developing countries were ready to sign up to the kinds of targets envisaged by this approach. It will be difficult to match up, given the widely differing conditions in different countries—I think particularly of differing weather patterns and temperatures, which can have a profound effect on the energy mix required in any country—and very real difficulties will need to be factored into any converged emissions target. The idea of contraction and convergence is likely to make an important contribution to the climate change debate in future, however, when negotiations take place on how further greenhouse gas reductions may be achieved equitably. I hope that that is a helpful response to my hon. Friend's comments.
Although the Kyoto protocol sets targets only for developed countries, we should not underestimate the steps that developing countries are also taking to reduce their emissions. Many developing countries are taking domestic action to improve transport technologies and energy efficiency, all of which can be only beneficial to climate change. The United Kingdom is working to engage key developing countries, such as India and China, in a constructive dialogue about how they can build on existing domestic action.
However, developing countries rightly want to see that the developed world is serious about delivering on its promises. There are many options open to developed countries, including the use of the Kyoto mechanisms, to enable them to meet their targets cost effectively. However, we firmly believe that domestic action must form the main means of meeting our Kyoto commitments. I think it will help the House if I outline what we are trying to do in this field.
We have led the way by going beyond our legally binding Kyoto target of a 12.5 per cent. reduction and setting our much more challenging 20 per cent. domestic goal for reductions in CO2 emissions rather than the basket of greenhouse gases. In response to my hon. Friend

579
and other hon. Members who raised this question, I can confirm that that remains the Government's goal—although all hon. Members will recognise that it is an extremely challenging target. Unless we are successful in implementing the range of policies that I shall describe, that goal will be even harder to achieve.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) asked several questions about the integrated transport policy. He recognised that that policy is critical to achieving significant reductions in CO2 emissions. Changes to transport taxation announced by the Chancellor that are designed to cut emissions will make a contribution. I refer not only to the continuation of the fuel duty escalator but to a new vehicle excise duty system that benefits those driving smaller, more efficient cars, and changes to the company car tax system designed to remove incentives for people to drive more and to encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient cars.
Speaking as Minister for London, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have introduced powers in the Greater London Authority Bill to enable the mayor of London to introduce a congestion charging and non-residential parking scheme designed not only to discourage the unnecessary use of motor vehicles—particularly in congested areas—but to allow the hypothecated revenue from those charges to be used for specific investment in public transport, to make it easier for people to travel other than by private car. We are taking important practical steps to give effect to the integrated transport White Paper strategy.
The utility reform Bill will assist the Government by including powers to set energy efficiency standards of performance and requiring the gas and electricity companies to encourage and assist customers to use less energy. Meanwhile, we hope that the energy regulator, using the powers under the existing legislation, will continue the successful electricity EESOP scheme and extend it to help gas consumers. The radically improved fuel poverty programme that we announced recently—to which several hon. Members referred—will help to ensure that old people, the disabled, children and people with health difficulties have properly insulated and heated homes. The measure aims primarily to tackle fuel poverty, but it will contribute to reducing carbon emissions in certain cases.
580
I stress that the programme's main focus is to help those people who suffer seriously from fuel poverty to enjoy higher standards of comfort. I make no apologies for measures that are designed to help the poor to keep warm. It is not acceptable that many people die during the winter because they cannot keep warm. That is a major social responsibility that we must tackle.
Mr. Dalyell: That is peanuts compared to the nuclear issue. Will the Minister comment about the vitally important deeply engineered repository?
Mr. Raynsford: I was about to come to that. My hon. Friend will recognise that there are a wide range of issues, and I do not accept that the points that I have raised are "peanuts". If we succeed in reducing carbon dioxide emission from motor vehicles, in the home and in buildings through more energy efficient measures and better building regulations—we are reviewing part L of the building regulations—that will be a significant achievement.
The climate change levy will encourage businesses to use energy more efficiently. We recognise the particular concerns of energy-intensive industries and offer the prospect of a significantly lower rate of levy to those sectors that enter into agreements to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions. We are consulting specifically on that issue—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North referred—and we are working to ensure a constructive approach to combined heat and power and renewables as part of the package. That approach is under consultation so I cannot give a more definitive answer today.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) referred to the importance of changing people's attitudes. That is a key element in the Government's £7 million "Are you doing your bit?" publicity campaign. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the Government's response to the House of Lords recommendations on the storage of nuclear waste. The Government will respond to that in due course, and I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to write to my hon. Friend about it—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We shall now move on to the next debate.

Constitutional Reform (England)
11 am
Mr. James Gray: I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce this debate, which is crucial for the United Kingdom. This morning, however, I speak more particularly as the Member of Parliament for North Wiltshire. It is worth my admitting, before anyone else points it out, that I am a Scot. I was born, bred and educated in Scotland, as I have already pointed out in one or two debates on devolution. Now, I speak not as a Scot but as someone who has spent more than half his life in England. I speak as an honorary Englishman, and as a Member who represents an English constituency.
This debate is vital for my constituents because, in the past two years of constitutional debate and the headlong rush towards devolution for Scotland and Wales, not a word has been said about the English question. England is a slumbering giant who is only now beginning to wake up and think about the English question.
I am delighted to see in his place this morning the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who, 20 or 30 years ago, first raised all these issues in the famous West Lothian question. Unfortunately, he will have to leave the debate later, so we shall not hear his views on the English question, which would be to the point. The West Lothian question remains on the table, unanswered. The Labour Government, in their fixation on Scotland and Wales, have not even tried to address that question and its consequences for England.
Even the recent report by the Select Committee on Procedure, which is grandly entitled "The Procedural Consequences of Devolution", does not mention the English question in its many hundreds of pages. It makes no attempt whatsoever to address the consequences of devolution for my constituents in England. That is a shame, because there is a variety of procedural and structural solutions to the West Lothian question which should have been addressed, and which should be addressed now that Scotland and Wales are, so to speak, out of the way.
Those solutions include a full English Parliament. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who recently produced a book called "The English Parliament". If she is lucky enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, she will undoubtedly want to expand on that option. Another procedural option is curiously called the in-and-out method. I shall not attempt to deal with all the various options this morning because this is not an academic lecture. We are not discussing the various constitutional possibilities available to us, although I look forward to hearing my right hon. and hon. Friends' solutions to the West Lothian question later in the debate.
The important point is the principle that, since devolution, Members of the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood speak and vote exclusively on Scottish business; to a lesser degree, Members of the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff speak and vote on Welsh matters, and Northern Ireland Members in Stormont will speak and vote on Northern Irish matters. Why, then, should Scottish and Welsh Members come here and speak and vote on English matters? That position is totally illogical and unsustainable. Why should the fate of my constituents in North Wiltshire depend on the peculiar parliamentary
582
arithmetic that includes those people who have chosen to set up their own Parliament in Edinburgh and Assembly in Wales? There is no logic in that, and it is important that this Parliament now addresses that question.
If the solution is that English Members of Parliament come to Westminster to speak and vote exclusively on English matters, as they did before 1707, so be it. That is my personal preference. That would be the price that Scotland and Wales must pay for devolution. If we have English MPs in this place speaking and voting on English matters, there will be important constitutional consequences that we must start to address. Those consequences are the prime reason that the Labour party will not even consider that solution.
First, it is extremely likely that the party in power—the majority party—in England would be different from the majority party in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)indicated dissent.
Mr. Gray: The Minister shakes his head. He would be right to say that in this Parliament, of course, there would be a Labour majority in England as there is in Scotland. I shall return to his challenge in a moment.
Labour's fear is that there would be a Conservative majority in England, as there has been for about 90 per cent. of this century, even when there has been an overall Labour majority provided by the Scottish Labour MPs. While we have one Parliament, one Government and one constitution, we in North Wiltshire do not mind being dominated by Labour MPs and a Labour Government even if there is a Conservative majority in England. However, the position is quite different if Scotland and Wales have their own Parliament and Assembly respectively. Why should my constituents in North Wiltshire then be dominated by a Labour Government if there is a Conservative majority in England?
That brings me back to the Minister's indication of dissent a moment ago. If he believes, in his arrogant new Labour manner, that new Labour will have a majority in England for all time, I put to him not the West Lothian question but the Chippenham challenge: he must allow an English Government to be set up, based on the majority of Members of Parliament in England, as he appears to be confident that Labour will dominate that Government as well as the UK Government. Let the Minister put his money where his mouth is and agree to my proposal.
It is clear that if we had English Members of Parliament speaking and voting on English matters in Westminster, the UK Government would not fall every time they lost a Division in the English Parliament. They would want to maintain their power over the UK. The majority in England would effectively form an English Government. Perhaps an English Parliament is too grand an expression, but we could have an English Government. Certain Departments of State, particularly those that have no interest in Scotland and Wales, would then be answerable to English Ministers sitting in this place as part of an English Government, who would match those in Scotland and Wales.
If there were any difference in parity between the English and UK Governments, the position would be no more complex than it would if we had a Conservative

583
Government in the UK—as many Conservative Members hope and expect that we shall in two years—and a Labour Government in Holyrood or a Labour-dominated Assembly in Cardiff. The stresses and strains between Holyrood and Westminster, which have so often been pointed out by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, are precisely the same as those that would exist if we had a Labour Government nationally and an English Government.
The second problem of which the Labour Government are well aware, and the second reason that they will not even begin to accept my proposed solution, relates to the Barnett formula. If we had an English Government at Westminster, how could we justify the fact that the Government spend £4,792 per head in Scotland, compared to £3,897 in England? Why is less spent on the English than on the Scots? Why does Scotland annually receive a subsidy of £7 billion, or £1,000 per head of population?
That is fine while we are one nation with one Government and one Parliament. The richer parts of the nation must subsidise the poorer parts. I am only too pleased that that is the case. That would remain the case for the north-east and north-west of England and, perhaps, Devon and Cornwall. My relatively prosperous constituents in North Wiltshire should pay their taxes towards subsidising the less prosperous parts of the nation, but not when the less prosperous parts are making their own decisions. Why should my constituents subsidise decisions made in Holyrood over which I have no control and in which I have no say?
The Institute for Fiscal Studies considered that question carefully and said that if we ended the subsidy to Scotland, the base rate of income tax in Scotland would be 48p in the pound. If so—I should regret it from the point of view of my mother and my relations and friends who live in Scotland—so be it. The Scots will be realising for the first time the true cost of the Parliament with which I for one so often disagreed.
If there is such a solution to the West Lothian question, a number of interesting consequences arise will from it. The first I call the Airdrie and Shotts question. If the Government accept my solution, why on earth should Scottish Members of Parliament—in this case the Minister for Transport, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell)—have a say in London over English transport matters? The right hon. Lady cannot do so similarly in Holyrood. She has no influence over Scottish transport—she is not allowed to have any such influence. She is specifically excluded from talking about Scottish transport matters, but may pontificate on what English truckers and drivers must do. What possible justification can there be for that? I cannot go to Holyrood and pontificate on Scottish transport, so why should she do so on matters concerning my truckers in Wiltshire? Representing a Scottish constituency, she has no say whatever over transport matters in Scotland.
Mr. David Maclean: The situation is even worse than that. The matter is not just one of the Minister for Transport pontificating. She is presiding over a roads budget in England which the Government have drastically slashed. The M6 in the north of my constituency, just south of the Scottish border, is a good case in point—an important piece of road has not been built. At the same time, the right hon. Lady, as a
584
Scottish Member of Parliament, is benefiting from a Scottish roads budget that is 24 per cent. greater. That is a fundamental injustice.
Mr. Gray: My right hon. Friend makes a very sound point. The Prime Minister will shortly have an opportunity to correct that wrong. If he is to avoid the wrath of the English, he must consider in the reshuffle that is coming up whether it will be acceptable for Scottish Members of Parliament to remain as Ministers in England.
There is a slightly broader question, too. Why should Scottish Members of Parliament have such a disproportionate effect in the Cabinet? Around the Cabinet table, there are at the moment 22 Cabinet Ministers. Five of them represent Scottish seats and a further two happen to be Scots representing constituencies here in England. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Social Security are all Scots who sit here in England and talk about English matters. The Scots amount to 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population, but are represented by 33 per cent. of the Cabinet. Why should that be?
While we were one nation, with one Parliament and one Government, that was of course acceptable. As a Scot who is proud to represent an English seat, I am only too delighted that my nation has had a disproportionate effect on running the world over the past 200 or 300 years. However, now that the Scots have gone their own way in Holyrood, how can we possibly justify the fact that 33 per cent. of the Cabinet that runs the United Kingdom are Scots, and the English are ignored?
Mr. John Bercow: In addition to the inequities that my hon. Friend has described, does he agree that Members of this House representing Scottish constituencies, who also serve in the Scottish Parliament and are therefore twin-trackers, should not be allowed to vote in this House so as to advantage their Scottish constituents and the cause of the Scottish Parliament, and in the process disadvantage the vast majority of constituencies represented in this House? Is that not palpably wrong?
Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point on the arithmetic of the number of Members of Parliament here and their prospective jobs. If he will forgive me, I shall reply to his point in a moment.
Before I lose sight of the way in which Scots run the United Kingdom, I for once want to quote Jeremy Paxman—not usually a friend of anything that the Conservative party says, although on this occasion what he said was quite sensible. He said:
"An Englishman can be defined as someone who lives on an island in the North Sea governed by Scots."
That may work for one Parliament, but the moment that there is a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, as is now so, it is no longer acceptable. England, this morning, is beginning to turn.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned the consequences for Back Benchers in this place. There are indeed consequences for Back Benchers' roles. At the moment, every Scottish Member of Parliament represents about 54,000 people,

585
and every English Member of Parliament represents about 69,000 people. I am particularly fortunate because I represent 77,000 people in North Wiltshire. I therefore represent about one and a half times as many people as Scots Members of Parliament do.
The Government realised that fact during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998, and wrote into the Act that as soon as time permits—I believe well into the next century, following the next boundary commission report—Scots Members of Parliament will move to parity with English Members. They will have to represent 69,000 people, and perhaps 77,000 people in one or two places, as we do. Why on earth should that be? What possible logic is there in a Scottish Member of Parliament who, due to the proportional representation system that has prevailed in Scotland, is helped out by two or three Members of the Scottish Parliament, doing the same job as I do single-handedly for my constituents in England?
I deal with education, health, the environment, transport and all such issues. I deal with every parliamentary issue on behalf of my 77,000 constituents, whereas there are four Members of Parliament for each Scottish constituency, and one deals only with foreign policy, defence and social security. What on earth will these guys in England do all day? Their constituency business will be divided among four people, and much of it will be dealt with in Edinburgh. They may have the Child Support Agency and one or two other constituency bits and pieces to address down here, but they will have nothing to do in most policy areas. How can they justify their time here?
What is more, how can they justify how much they are paid? How can I be paid £47,000 a year to represent 77,000 people on a range of policies, whereas, apparently, they will be paid £47,000 a year to do half or a quarter of my job? I say that slightly tongue in cheek because, of course, they will have the same outgoings as I do, and I would not want some of my friends who are Scottish Members of Parliament at the moment to cease buying my drinks in the bar. Nevertheless, the point behind my remarks is important. Scottish Members of Parliament may sit here, but they do not have a job to do.
Never mind parity, as the Scotland Act allows; what about reducing the number of Scottish Members of Parliament—the twin-trackers of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham reminded us—perhaps even as far as the number of Members of the European Parliament who represent Scotland, which is currently eight? Perhaps we should generously allow 15 or 20 Scottish MPs to remain here to talk about UK issues, foreign policy and defence. Why should there be parity with the English? There should be significantly fewer constituencies. They wanted their own Parliament, and now that they have it, they must pay the price for it.
The only attempt that the Labour Government have made so far to address the English question has been to come up with the half-baked, half-hearted notion of English regional development agencies and regional assemblies to go with them. The Government hope that that will buy off the West Lothian question and be the magic answer to it. Of course, it is not for a host of reasons—although there are two primary ones.
586
There is absolutely no appetite in England for regional government. There is no such thing as the south-west of England. Swindon, towards the east of my constituency, is a great deal closer to Paris than it is to Penzance. Gloucester, which is also in the south-west, is closer to Glasgow than to Penzance. If anything, the south-west is Devon and Cornwall, but to include Bournemouth, Swindon and Gloucester in it is simply nonsense. The same of course applies to the south-east, for example. There is no such thing as the south-east; to try to suggest otherwise and that there will be a Parliament for it is nonsense.
There is no appetite for such government; the Government are merely trying to find some way of answering the unanswerable West Lothian question. Anyhow, no one has ever suggested that regional assemblies should have the right to make primary legislation, as the Scottish Parliament does. There is no link between the two forms of government; the proposed regional government is an attempt to fudge the issue.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Such a proposal may be an attempt to fudge the issue, but is it not slightly more sinister? It is very convenient for there to be all these regions, given the Government's intention to create a federal Europe of regions.
Mr. Gray: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I was alarmed the other day to see a European map of Britain on which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were marked, but for England all it said was "Regions of the European Union". The word "England" was not mentioned at all. The truth that is known by all of us from England is that England has as strong an identity and place in the world as either Scotland or Wales, but that we have allowed ourselves to forget it.
It is perfectly healthy, and no form of English nationalism, to remind ourselves of that English identity. Perhaps we should consider moving the May bank holiday, for example, from its absurd position of 1 May, and hold it a week earlier, on 23 April, to celebrate St. George's day. Why not be proud of St. George and the dragon? St. George is as great a hero as St. Andrew or St. David. Shakespeare called England
"this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England".
The people of England have quietly watched the Scots and the Welsh go their own way, but now is the time for us to assert our English rights. Our English identity must be recognised, and the unbalanced English constitution must be righted. As G. K. Chesterton put it:
"Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget.
For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet."
As Churchill said, when he was on the other side of the Chamber:
"There is a long-forgotten—nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England."
Now is the time for the House to speak for England.
11.21 am
Mr. Nick Harvey: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, as I think that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has made some very interesting points. Although I think that he was a little harsh to say that there has been no response from

587
the Government to the West Lothian question, it is certainly true that there has been no convincing response to the challenge that is posed by devolution to Scotland and Wales. I should make it clear that I welcome moves to devolution in Scotland and in Wales, but I also recognise that devolution has implications for England, many of which have been touched on by the hon. Gentleman.
One of the contributions towards answering the West Lothian question has to be devolution to the English regions. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire and I disagree on that issue. However, I think that he was right to say that devolution to the English regions will not in itself be an answer to the West Lothian question.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman was wrong when he said that there is absolutely no appetite for English devolution. A recent MORI poll found that two thirds of voters would like decisions to be made closer to home. We are one of the most centralised nations in the democratic world. Far too much is decided at Westminster and in Whitehall that people would instinctively welcome being decided nearer to home, at a more community level.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Is that not the purpose of local councils?
Mr. Harvey: That is not the purpose of local councils. Local councils are responsible for running public services in their communities.
Although many services in this country are operated on a regional level, those regions are not conterminous from one sphere of public service to another. We have one set of health regions; we have different Departments operating in completely different regions; and we have the media operating in still different regions. Every organisation in this country divides itself to form a regional footprint of one sort or another, and there is absolutely no commonality between them in how they do so. We are almost unique in the democratic world in doing that.
Some people say that because England is small geographically, there is no need for division into the provinces, states or regions into which other countries divide themselves. I appreciate that point, but in England we are trying to organise public services for far greater numbers of people on the basis of a far more centralised footprint than almost any other country in the world. I therefore believe that, over time, there will be more demand for devolution in England.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that, currently, either in his constituency or in mine, there is not a clamour for the creation of a south-west regional parliament.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, as he develops his remarks, whether he would retain parish councils, district councils, county councils and regional councils—plus this place, plus the European Parliament? If so, how would he explain that to his taxpayers?
Mr. Harvey: I have every intention of addressing that issue, and shall come to it in just a few moments.
Mr. Maclean: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Harvey: No; I shall make a little progress, if I may.
588
We organise services regionally, but in a very muddled and inconsistent manner. I agree with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that the footprint being used by the Government's regional offices, which is being duplicated for tomorrow's European elections, is simply wrong, and that the boundaries that they use make absolutely no sense. The boundaries are slightly more sensible in the north of England than in the midlands. However, in the south of England, it is sheer nonsense to suggest that one should pass through only two regions in driving from Penzance to Dover, which is a distance equivalent to that from London to Edinburgh. As a result of that nonsense, there is certainly much less support for moving towards regionalism in the south of England than there is in the north.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I very much agree with the Government's moves to establish regional development agencies. My only regret is that the agencies do not have bigger budgets and greater powers. However, I hope that, over time, those will come. Currently, although the RDAs' budgets total about £800 million, all but 10 per cent. of that is simply funds drawn together from schemes that already existed and put under a different form of management.
I recently met the chairman and chief executive of the south-west RDA, which is making good progress in developing an ambitious but realistic economic strategy. Like me, however, I think that people at the RDA are concerned that the scale of their success will be limited by the lack of resources and freedoms available to them.
Regional chambers are developing alongside RDAs. In a sense, the chambers are an embryo of directly elected regional assemblies, which I also welcome. However, at least for the time being, the chambers are nothing more than talking shops. The Deputy Prime Minister has been rather slow in designating chambers as the official bodies that the RDAs must consult, and that has not enhanced the RDAs' credibility. Nevertheless, we are able to see where the Government are beginning to go with the policy.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) that the Government's policy on regional devolution is part of a ghastly plot to do away with the nation state, but believe that it will simply put us on the same basis established by other nation states.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that whenever hon. Members talk about taking powers from this Parliament to other bodies—whether to the European Parliament, regional assemblies or to any other devolved body—they are really talking about depreciating and devaluing the importance of this House of Parliament and the importance and relevance of its Members?
Mr. Harvey: The starting point of my speech was that Britain is too centralised. Therefore, if we decentralise, we shall by definition be taking powers away from this House. Personally, I have no great paranoia about that. In a sense, we are too centralised, and it would be a good thing to decentralise. I think that my constituents would welcome the idea of decisions being made nearer to where they live.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Harvey: No; I shall make more progress, if I may.

589
I have mentioned the fact that the boundaries are not realistic, and that they should be revisited before we go any further down the devolution path. However, the Government must themselves take the lead in using a common definition of "region", and they should ensure that Departments that currently are not organised according to the regional footprint become so organised. Nevertheless, as I said, that will be only part of the solution to the West Lothian problem, and it cannot be the whole solution.
Neither I nor anyone else would want different English regions to have different criminal laws, different school systems or leaving ages, or completely different health provision systems; and we certainly would not want people in the east midlands to drive on the left, while those in the west midlands drove on the right. Therefore, many important issues will still have to be decided at Westminster in primary legislation. Once certainly cannot say that devolution to the regions is the whole answer to the West Lothian question, because it certainly is not. That brings us to the West Lothian question.
I agree with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that, in the long term, it is not sustainable for Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament to come to this place to vote on and run English services. The issue will come to a head most particularly when we have a general election with the type of outcome to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is entirely possible that, in a tighter general election, on current party lines, there could be a Labour majority across the United Kingdom, but a Conservative majority in England. I have no difficulty with that. It would not result in a constitutional crisis. The situation would be similar if we had a Conservative majority across the UK and a Labour majority in the Scottish Parliament. We should not be hugely concerned about that.
Mr. Bercow rose—
Mr. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman has been dying to get in, so I shall give him his moment.
Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for charitably giving way. To prevent the House from being enveloped in a fog of confusion, would he care to answer two simple questions? First, does he, individually or on behalf of his party, believe that twin-tracking—or, as some people impolitely call it, double troughing—whereby a Member of this House is also a Member of the Scottish Parliament, is in principle wrong? Secondly, given that he has said that he has no objection to a decentralisation of powers, are we to take it that he objects to the centralisation of powers? If so, will he explain his tergiversation on entry to the euro, which manifestly involves the centralisation of power in the European Union?
Mr. Harvey: I am not sure that entry to the euro has anything to do with constitutional reform in England and the balance between England, Scotland and Wales which we are discussing.
I do not favour a permanent dual mandate, but it is a reasonable interim arrangement when a new body is brought into being. The rules that will not permit that beyond the next round of elections are a sensible balance.
590
I do not support the ideas of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on the creation of a separately elected English Parliament, but there is nothing wrong with this House sitting in English session, excluding the representatives of Scottish constituencies, when it is discussing English business. Similarly, there is no difficulty with English and Welsh Members sitting together here when English and Welsh matters are being discussed.
Mr. David Davis rose—
Mr. Harvey: I note the right hon. Gentleman trying to get in, but time is pressing and I am supposed to keep to a time limit, so if he will forgive me I shall not let him in at the moment.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked about the different layers of government. The Government have already said in two or three places that, before any region had a regional assembly, there would have to be unitary systems of local government. I entirely agree. It would be unacceptable for taxpayers to have a district council, a county council and a regional assembly, so unitary systems of local government would be a prerequisite, but I hope that that would not be brought about by means of the ludicrous and farcical commission process that we went through under the previous Government, under the chairmanship of Sir John Banham.
To sum up, we live in the most centralised nation in the world. It is essential to introduce some devolution in England, but that is not a solution to the West Lothian question. It will still be necessary for English Members to sit here alone as an English body when discussing English business.
11.33 am
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: When people went to the polling booths at the general election, I am sure that they did not realise that Labour was planning the restructuring of our constitution. The party had no intention of making that clear. Since the election, six constitutional Bills have come before the House, providing for change in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, as well as reform of the Lords and, most significantly, the creation of regional assemblies. Those issues have not been linked in the public mind as a massive change in the constitutional structure that has served us very well for generations, giving us a remarkable amount of peace. We have never seen refugees moving around our country, or the disturbances and turmoil that we see to this day in Europe.
The harmony that we have enjoyed is being disrupted in the most irresponsible way by the Labour Government, purely for political advantage. They see the process as a way of establishing their power in the Chamber into the foreseeable future. They also want to bring us closer to the European structure. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), whom I congratulate heartily on securing the debate, has pointed out, the hidden agenda for England involves the Committee of the Regions, which is part and parcel of the Maastricht treaty.
It is no accident that England has been left out of the referendums, which I am sure that the Liberal Democrats greatly support. I am astonished that the hon. Member for

591
North Devon (Mr. Harvey) could want yet another layer of government. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats think that people have bottomless pockets to pay for such structures. The Scottish Parliament is already predicted to cost £50 million a year, but we all know that that will be a massive underestimate. We have already said that some people will be drawing twin salaries for popping up and down on first-class flights between here and Edinburgh to poke their nose into English affairs whenever it suits the Labour party to sway a vote one way or another. They will be able to vote on matters of domestic importance to England.
Sir Robert Smith: There is no first-class fare between Scotland and England on British Airways.
Mrs. Gorman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. Private enterprise has clearly cottoned on to the fact that the Scots are canny with their money and do not want to waste it.
Mr. Forth: It is our money.
Mrs. Gorman: With our money, then; I bet that they travel first class if they come down by train.
The issue is well illustrated by one of the Labour party's thinkers, as I believe that he is known—the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who has recently fallen from grace in his party, but who occupied a prominent position in its thinking and strategy. He announced at a meeting of the European Movement in March 1998:
"The era of pure representative democracy is slowly coming to an end. Democracy and legitimacy need constant renewal."
I am sure that we all agree with that fairly bland statement. He then said:
"They need to be redefined with each generation. Representative government is being complemented by more direct forms of involvement from the Internet to Referenda."
Remarkably, he missed out England, where 48 million of our population reside, when offering referendums.
Two years ago, I promoted a Bill calling for a referendum on whether the people of England wanted a Parliament for England. I used that term advisedly. It has nothing to do with nationalism; it has to do with fairness. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) has frequently pointed out, there is no justification for leaving the people of England out of decisions on their future, when that courtesy has been paid to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Our country is to be sold off in a gigantic boot sale, a bit at a time, to Europe so that it can dispose of us and our long-established traditions. The institutions that we take for granted, including this place and the other House, which is currently being blitzed by Labour, are tremendously important for the stability of our nation. They have proved their worth over generations and we disturb them at our peril. One of the basic tenets of membership of this House is that we are all equal and our rights to speak in debates and our ability to influence legislation are equal, but Labour's policies for Scotland and Wales have disturbed that.
Labour is not the only party involved. Historically, it was a Conservative Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, who gave the Scottish people a Scottish Office to deal with
592
domestic issues. There was no great need for a new Parliament in Scotland because many of the decisions have always been made within the Scottish Office and that tradition has continued, particularly in education and law, and we have all learned lessons from that. There has been no particular political animosity in the Conservative party towards Scotland, but I know that that issue has been played up by the Scottish nationalists.
Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is indicative of the sheer indifference to the wishes and interests of the people of England that there is not a single Labour Back Bencher sitting behind the Minister?
Mrs. Gorman: That is a telling point. However, in the Tea Room, quietly and out of earshot of the those on the Government Front Bench, I have heard murmurings among Labour Beck Benchers—when they can be bothered to turn up—about their considerable misgivings over what the Government are doing to our country. Now that they are beginning to find a little courage, I hope that they will put in their fourpenny worth on this issue.
As I was saying, the Conservative party has never done anything to bring about disturbances such as we are seeing now. Indeed, more recently than Lord Salisbury, Winston Churchill created the post of a Minister for Wales and gave Wales a seat at the Cabinet table within the United Kingdom Government—and that is what matters.
Naturally, the Labour Government would prefer to keep the Union alive—the Prime Minister has said that on a number of occasions. Of course that is what they want because it provides Celtic voting fodder at Westminster. The Scots and Welsh will be able to represent views here, particularly on budgetary issues which, as has already been pointed out, will be grossly imbalanced to the disadvantage of the English taxpayer.
There is no question of the English people tolerating such a situation indefinitely. If the Government believe in referendums, as the right hon. Member for Hartlepool has stated, is it not time that they decided that those of us who live in England, including those of Scottish and Welsh origin and others from all over the globe, should have a say? We have taxation without representation in parts of the United Kingdom that will be disposing of the money, whereas the people in Scotland and Wales will have representation within their Parliament and Assembly without the need to raise the funds to back it up. We have already seen the problems that that is likely to cause.
The hon. Member for North Devon talked about more regional devolution of power. I wonder whether he has any idea what the powers will be or their limit. We have already pointed out the ludicrous nature of a separate transport policy in different regions—but it is possible. We saw such an anomaly immediately after the election of the Scottish Parliament, when the Labour party needed to get into bed with the Liberal Democrats. There was a hoo-hah about whether they would overturn their own Government's policy on higher education funding. Such anomalies will develop all over the country and we will have fratricide. People will contend with each other for funds. There will be animosity, and the harmony, which, as I have said, is vital to the success of our country, will be damaged.
Mr. Maclean: I am sure that my hon. Friend is not exaggerating the different policies that may be in

593
operation. The lesson we have learned from the Lib-Lab pact in Scotland is that the Liberals were so desperate to get jobs and to become Deputy First Ministers that they backed down on their election promises and got into bed at the Government's price. There was no real dissension.
Mrs. Gorman: That is what happens when the Government are broken into bits and pieces and start doing deals. The same applies to proportional representation as a form of election.
Sir Robert Smith: In the spirit of the hon. Lady's belief that proportional representation is bad, she could solve the problem of the need for deals in the Scottish Parliament by urging every Scottish Conservative elected by PR—there would be no Conservatives without it—not to attend the Parliament or to vote. That would solve the problem.
Mrs. Gorman: The ludicrous nature of the hon. Gentleman's remarks will preclude me from allowing him any more interventions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire has pointed out, England is being wiped off the map. It is no accident but is part of the Labour Government's policy, which they are not prepared to declare openly to the British people. The Conservative party is making that clear and will continue to do so. We see the passions of patriotism beginning to stir in the breasts of those who live in England. I hope that the people of England who, as we know, have yet to be made fully aware of the implications for their back pockets as well as their hearts and minds, will, in the not-too-distant future, decide that the party which embraces their cause—the Conservative party, which has always believed in the Union of this country—will stand up for their right to be treated equally with the rest of the United Kingdom. They will then put the Labour party back where it belongs—on the Opposition Benches.
11.46 am
Mr. Christopher Gill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on obtaining this debate and on the lucid and logical presentation of his argument. It was a delight to listen to. I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) who can take credit for having broached this subject initially. She put it on the political agenda. Many people are grateful to her for doing so and for all she does to keep it in the public eye.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire has recited many of the problems that exist today. He mentioned the West Lothian question and the problems created by the Barnett formula. He explained that both those problems have been exacerbated by Welsh and Scottish devolution which, in turn, is leading to the burgeoning demand for an English Parliament.
I should like to broaden the debate by drawing the House's attention to other problems. There is potential for the break-up of the United Kingdom. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) in an intervention when he rightly identified that as being part of a recognisable policy from
594
the European Union so that ultimately we have a Europe controlled, governed and ruled through the regions rather than through national Parliaments.
We are seeing the deliberate destruction of the United Kingdom constitution, ruthlessly pushed forward by the new Labour Government. It is consistent with the views of those in the Councils of the European Commission who want to see the power of national Parliaments reduced.
The other problems essentially concern the upper House. The new Labour Government know that their first move is to abolish the power of the hereditaries. We all know that that is their policy and, to give credit where it is due, they made no secret of it because it was in their election manifesto. However, many of us depart from the Labour Government because we recognise that they do not have a living clue what the next move will be. So, in addition to the problems caused by the West Lothian question, the Barnett formula and the burgeoning demand for an English Parliament we have the problems in the upper House. The argument rages back and forth as to whether we should have an upper House elected by universal suffrage or one that is appointed. If it is to be appointed, it is obvious that we would be increasing the patronage power of the Executive. There are some who argue that we should have a mix of the two.
Mr. Maclean: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend's excellent, powerful and fascinating speech. However, I take issue with him on one point. I think that the Government and the Prime Minister know exactly what they want to do in the other place. They have made their first move to abolish hereditary peers and they do not intend to have another replacement chamber elected democratically or by any other means. Quite clearly they intend the Prime Minister to appoint his own placemen and to continue that for the next 20, 30 or 50 years.
Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend makes a very powerful point and I do not resile from it. That is very likely the Government's intention. If it is, what I am about to suggest is even more pertinent than I originally anticipated. If the intention is to make the upper House an extension of the power of the patronage of the Prime Minister and the Executive, surely the House of Commons would wish to question that.
We should use the opportunity created by Lords reform to try to deal with as many as possible of the existing problems. I have instanced several of them. We must now be prepared to consider the creation of a United Kingdom federal Parliament sitting on the red Benches in the upper House and an English Parliament sitting on the green Benches here. That would eliminate at a stroke four real and readily identifiable problems.
The duties and responsibilities of the federal Parliament would be essentially those appertaining to defence, foreign affairs, law and order and Treasury, with all other functions devolved to the English and Scottish Parliaments and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies. Admittedly, my proposal envisages a unicameral system, but it has to be recognised that the precedent for a unicameral system has already been well and truly established by Scottish and Welsh devolution.

What is more important is that the proposal eliminates any possibility of turf wars between the two elected Chambers. In addition, because the federal Parliament

595
would be elected by universal suffrage, it removes the prospect of an upper Chamber filled partially or entirely with placemen. The question of competing claims for democratic legitimacy as between two House of Parliament simply would not arise in those circumstances.
A federal Parliament comprising Members returned by unitary authorities and counties would bind the United Kingdom together at a time when its historical cohesiveness is under threat as never before. It would solve the West Lothian question, end the inequity of the Barnett formula, satisfy the English dimension and represent an intelligible and practical solution to an otherwise intractable problem.
As an addendum, it goes without saying that elections to the United Kingdom federal Parliament must be by the first-past-the-post system so as to ensure that as far as is humanly possible, ultimate power rests with the people and is not handed to the political parties.
11.54 am
Mr. David Maclean: I regret that the time has come to take seriously the question of an English Parliament. I say that not because I am a devoted fan of the concept of an English Parliament or English nationalism, but because I passionately believe in the United Kingdom and keeping what we can of our United Kingdom Parliament. However, the United Kingdom is heading for destruction and so is the United Kingdom Parliament because of the unbalancing carried out by the Government in the past two years.
Scotland will have its own Parliament and Wales its own Assembly. I suspect that in order to do any deal at any price in Northern Ireland, the Government will settle for anything there, so we can assume that at some time, sooner rather than later, there will be independent Government in Northern Ireland. This Parliament will be left quite unbalanced in its rights, duties and responsibilities.
The United Kingdom Parliament has worked because in this Chamber we were all equals. Admittedly, the Prime Minister, primus inter pares, is slightly more equal than others as are the rest of the Government, with their unique duties. Nevertheless, attempts were made to make sure that we represented roughly the same number of constituents with a unique formula built in for Scotland giving Scottish Members fewer constituents and therefore slightly greater powers. However, that was part of our settlement and it was acceptable as long as we had a United Kingdom Parliament in which all Members had equal voting rights. When we walk through this Lobby or that, we do so as individuals and a vote on one side is worth exactly the same as a vote on the other side.
From 1 July, however, that will no longer be the case as there will be 12 double troughers: six Scottish Nationalists, two Liberal Democrats and five Labour. A number of Members of the Scottish Parliament, who yesterday were voting themselves bigger salaries or allowances, will also sit in this House as Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. The nonsense will be that 72 Members representing Scottish constituencies will continue to sit in this House with the right to vote on everything in my constituency and the constituencies of all my right hon. and hon. Friends from England, but they will have no right to vote on those issues in Scotland and nor will we. That will unbalance the House. Therefore I
596
say to the Government, not with any sense of glee because it fills me with great distress, that they will cause the destruction of the United Kingdom.
This Parliament has worked rather like a centrifuge. If each side is loaded equally, it can spin at any speed and turn a great number of revolutions without destruction, but if one side of the centrifuge is overloaded, it will become unbalanced and inevitably destroy the whole machine. While we are still a United Kingdom, I can say to my constituents in Cumberland, just south of the Scottish border where there is an appalling stretch of M6 dual carriageway—the so-called Cumberland gap—that the Government are spending 24 per cent. more on roads in Scotland than they are on roads in England, but as part of United Kingdom policy, wealthier areas subsidise poorer ones.
Last weekend, some of my constituents pointed out to me that now that the Scots have their own Parliament, why should we tolerate Scottish MPs and MPs being able to vote on budgetary decisions in England which allocate their own constituencies 25 per cent. more money than English constituencies. The Minister for Transport, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) is one of the grossest and vilest examples of that. We have a Labour Minister from Glasgow dictating roads policy in England when she and other Ministers from Scotland have the benefit of higher financial rewards for their own constituencies. I shall not labour the point any more, but my constituents have spotted it and they do not like it.
Something must done about those injustices. They are not just perceived injustices, given that the Government have now created two classes of Member of Parliament in this House—those who get the money and those who have to vote it through but have no rights to it. Creating two classes of Member of Parliament here will destroy this House in its present form.
We must go down the route suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), which would be an acceptable solution. The Government have decided to give Scotland its independence, and Wales its semi-independence. Let us make no bones about it—Scotland will be independent sooner rather than later. One cannot be 95 per cent. pregnant—one cannot be 95 per cent. independent. Having given the Scots almost complete independence, the Government have discovered that the Scots have said, "Thank you, but we want a little more." The Government have not understood that reaction.
Sooner rather than later, Scotland will be independent, yet Scottish Members of Parliament will have unique voting rights in this House on domestic English matters. The only way in which we can keep something of our United Kingdom is by moving to a federal system. I despised such a system until last year, when I saw it as possibly the only solution. If Scotland has its own Parliament deciding on health, roads, education and other devolved matters—and Wales has the same—it makes sense to consider a similar solution for England, so that those matters are decided by English Members of Parliament and by English taxpayers, making the most of the budget that they have been allocated, or any extra money that they wish to raise by their own taxation powers.
However, for the sake of the defence and security of this country—and our voting clout in Europe—let us not destroy the United Kingdom. For defence, security and

597
foreign affairs—and for our votes in the Council of Ministers in Europe—let us keep the United Kingdom for those large, federal issues. It grieves me to come to this conclusion, because I believe that our previous system worked well. However, that is gone and there is no point in crying over spilled milk.
Scotland will be independent and Wales is going its own way. Presumably, Northern Ireland will be hived off by the Government to Prime Minister Adams in due course. If we are to keep something of the United Kingdom, the federal system suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow must be something at which we look seriously. We could use either this Chamber or the House of Lords, as my hon. Friend suggests.
I am sad that we have had to debate this matter, because I thought in the past that the concept of an English Parliament was unnecessary—and it was. However, an English Parliament is now the only possible solution to the West Lothian question, and in terms of keeping what remains of the United Kingdom intact. It will be the only way to stop the nasty side of English nationalism, which will rise if the perceived injustices continue.
12.3 pm
Mr. David Davis: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on obtaining this debate, which relates to matters of enormous constitutional importance. However, the field of argument is populated by more than its fair share of canards, Aunt Sallies, delusions and mirages, some of which I shall endeavour to knock down.
The Minister has argued that the case for an English Parliament originates solely from some unpleasant form of English nationalism. That is not remotely true—certainly not in my case. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—who has played a sterling part in bringing this issue forward—said that I have always argued that this is not an issue of nationalism, but of fairness and duty. It is an issue of fairness to English constituents, who have had their democracy diluted—a democratic deficit has been created for them—and it is an issue of duty on our part. Just as we can no more give away the sovereignty of our country on behalf of our constituents as their representatives, neither can we allow their democracy to be diluted and undermined. That is taking away from them something which they own and we do not.
This is an issue primarily of primary legislation. I had some sympathy with some of the points made by the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), but he did not spend long dealing with that issue. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I favour an English Parliament not from a sense of romance and emotion—although there is plenty of romance and emotion about feeling English—but through a clinical application of logic. Like my right hon. Friend, I would not have started from here, if I had been given the choice. I think that the United Kingdom's original arrangements were viable, and they were admired by many other democracies. However, we do not have that choice any more.
Now, it is possible for the United Kingdom Parliament to be unrepresentative of an English nation, but to legislate for that English nation against the political will
598
of that English nation. I arrived at my conclusion by eliminating all the other options—a sort of Conan Doyle approach. All the other proposals would lead, unfortunately and inevitably, to a constitutional crisis of one sort or another.
We have heard talk of English-designated days, English-designated legislation or an English Grand Committee. Let us imagine how that would work where the UK Parliament was of a different political persuasion from the English Members of that Parliament. People talk of Labour and Tories in this context. Frankly, we are designing a constitution for centuries, not years or days. Therefore, we must allow for the fact that there might be two completely different parties dealing with this system.
In circumstances where there were different political persuasions in the UK Parliament, the UK Government would have come to power on the basis of a manifesto which would have included policies relating to transport and health—issues that are massively important to the voters who put them there. They come top of the salience league when people are elected—they are what our electors care about most.
Mr. Harvey: If a system had emerged where the English Parliament was responsible for those matters while the UK Parliament had a completely different set of responsibilities, why would the Government come to power on that platform? Surely their platform would be different.
Mr. Davis: That is precisely my point. My argument concerns what would happen if there were not an English Parliament, but an English Grand Committee, or English-designated legislation or English-designated days. In those circumstances, the UK Government could propose a health Bill which, because it would be an English health Bill, would be defeated. The Executive would be defeated time and time again on principle planks of their manifesto. How long would this Government put up with that situation? Straight away we would have a major constitutional crisis.
It is for that reason that I come to the inevitable conclusion—with no great pleasure—that we need an English Parliament. It could sit in this place, and I am happy with the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), which is a perfectly sensible option. There are many other options as to where it sits, how it is chosen and whether it includes people who are already Members of the UK Parliament.
We must have an English Executive. If we have anything other than that, we cannot solve the problem. That is why I arrive at my position—not by emotion or sentiment, but by the elimination of the other possibilities. If we choose the other possibilities, we will have a constitutional crisis, and then we really will have a problem with English nationalism. At that point, the English will feel badly treated.
I have one minute to deal with some of the canards, so I shall be brief. It is argued that such conflict does not happen very often, but we are legislating for centuries. If it happens once, it is a problem, and in centuries it will happen much more often.
Some argue that an English Parliament would accelerate the break-up of the Union. My argument is based on my experience in Canada, which has a similar

599
federal system. There are much greater tensions between Quebec and Ontario than there ever are between Scotland and England, yet the federal system has withstood the pressures.
Some argue that we would play into Europe's hands by taking the federal route. In fact—I speak as an ex-Minister for Europe—the countries that are best at defending themselves against European predations are those that are themselves federal states. Germany is one example. I do not want to pick Belgium as an example, but we should note that it has to ratify European legislation through seven parliaments, so it has a ratchet.
Most of the canards can be seen to be false if one examines them carefully. The only solution that we can ultimately adopt is an English Parliament for the English people, giving democracy to all the British people.
12.11 pm
Mr. Oliver Letwin: This has been an astonishing debate, first because the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) are perhaps among the most serious that face the nation today and secondly because—with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whom one would have expected, above all other hon. Members, to be present, and who has been present in so far as his diary has permitted—we have Witnessed the entire absence of interest on the part of the very large number of Labour Members.
My right hon. and hon. Friends would agree that that is remarkable. It arises not from any lack of interest in Adjournment debates as such but from the fact that Labour Members, and the Government, do not regard these issues as serious. They do not think that there is a problem. We owe my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire a great debt for bringing a very real problem to our attention.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: There is a packed meeting of the parliamentary Labour party upstairs, with the Home Secretary addressing us on the question of asylum. One ought to view these matters in proportion.
Mr. Letwin: That may well be part of the explanation. I shall be most interested to see whether Labour Members show any real interest in the subject by raising it themselves on other occasions.
The Government have for most of the past two years taken the position that there is not a problem. I shall be very surprised if the Minister tells us anything other than that the Government do not think that anything needs to be done, with the possible exception of the creation of regional government in England. Some of my hon. Friends animadverted to that subject, but only the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) went into it in any detail.
The idea of regional government in England is far worse even than my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire suggested. We could add another layer of government and generate the huge paradox of accountability of no one having the slightest idea at which level various decisions are made. We are perilously close to that even now. The paradox is that the larger the number of forms of government we have, the less we can hold any of them to account, because the less idea we have about their actions.
600
The hon. Member for North Devon had a solution: to abolish county councils—and district councils, for all I know—and regionalise. That would move us in the opposite direction: far from bringing government down towards people, it would take it up away from them. Worse than that, the Government do not plan to introduce regional government in any rational form. They are suggesting regional referendums—no doubt without any rules to make them fair—and if, for example, the north-east, and no other area, voted in favour, we would have the bizarre arrangement of not only Scotland and Wales but other areas creating further imbalance in the constitution. I cannot imagine any less satisfactory form of dynamic constitution making.
Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, absolutely rightly, said that the move towards regionalisation was part of a deeper plot. I do not know whether the Minister is part of that plot or whether the Government are aware that they are part of it. Much that happens in relation to our gradual absorption into a federal united states of Europe is not designed by anyone in this country; we merely fall into it by a series of lapses of attention. The European Commission has demonstrated its clear intention, in a series of remarkably well argued and powerful cases, proposed in various studies and in the maps to which my right hon. and hon. Friends have referred, that we should end with a Europe of the regions, without England, and indeed without the United Kingdom as an entity.
For all those reasons, the Conservative party is, and will remain, wholly opposed to the regionalisation of England as a solution to the West Lothian question. Moreover, such a move would require giving primary legislative powers to the regions, and that is not in the Government's, let alone anyone else's, wildest ambitions, so it does not even constitute the beginning of a solution.
How do we tackle the West Lothian problem? Conservative Members have lucidly and powerfully illustrated why it needs to be tackled: the imbalances and the sense of unfairness to which the current situation will increasingly give rise. There must be a solution. We must come up with a set of policies to begin to diminish what will otherwise be a growing feeling of unfairness.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have, to a man—and a woman—argued with eloquence in favour of various forms of the solution broadly known as an English Parliament, which is in a sense a misnomer, because it really means an English Executive or Government, together with an assembly or parliament with primary legislative powers. I understand the reasons behind that view, as well as the objections advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) to other solutions, but I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends may have understated the difficulties attending the proposition that there should be an English parliament and an English Government.
There is no problem in principle about having a parliament within a federal state, as many countries operate such a system and we are now in the process of operating it vis-à-vis Scotland, but there is a problem if there is an imbalance between one part of the kingdom and another, and the fact is that, regardless of whether the situation is desirable, England is overwhelmingly larger, richer and more powerful than Scotland, and its Parliament and Government would be overwhelmingly larger and richer—and, I suspect, more powerful—than

601
any federal government. It would certainly be responsible for the great bulk of the taxation and spending in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Gray: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Letwin: I am saying not that there is anything wrong with that in itself, but that it would cause difficulties for a federal Government, supposedly responsible for macro-economic policy, if they could not control the great bulk of fiscal policy and expenditure. I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends to attend to that issue, which needs serious consideration before we leap in the direction of an English Parliament.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden asked whether a federal UK Government, if one were brought about by the creation of an English Government, would be able to maintain sufficient national confidence in the face of a powerful English Government to hold its own in the European Union. All my right hon. and hon. Friends would agree that any federal government should have such an ambition.
Because of such problems we need to pause before launching ourselves into the idea of an English Parliament. We must ask whether there is any other less dramatic solution that might address the West Lothian question, while not suffering from those drawbacks.
The range of options that my right hon. and hon. Friends have described, including giving a veto over English legislation to Members of this House who represent English constituencies, are serious possibilities. I do not think that they would necessarily create constitutional crises, but I see that they would create constitutional tensions.
I fear that what the Government have created, and the problems to which it has given rise, make it impossible to conceive of a solution that is wholly perfect for this country, configured as we are. I do not think that regional government gives us the beginning of an answer. I see that an English Parliament and an English Government would give us one answer, but an answer that involves real difficulties. I do not argue that a veto for English Members over English legislation, or any of the other variants, gives us a perfect solution, but those ideas may have fewer deficiencies than that of an English Parliament.
In any event, this is the terrain on which we need to hold the debate. We need to admit that there is a problem and to agree that it needs a solution, and that we need to discuss urgently as a nation—with the co-operation of the Government, I hope, rather than in the absence of any real interest from them—whether we shall choose an English Parliament, or perhaps some more modest proposal, so as to discover whether that would be a sufficient response.
12.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): One of the pleasures and privileges of the life of a junior Minister is to be frequently present in the Chamber on Wednesday mornings and at other times when Adjournment debates are taking place. I will have
602
had the pleasure of listening to and responding to two debates this morning, and I must tell the House that there was a marked contrast between the two.
The first was a serious and intelligent debate with high quality contributions from both sides of the House, characterised by an almost total absence of party political jibes, nasty personal attacks, overblown rhetoric and paranoid hyperbole. However, I have to say that—with at least three honourable exceptions, including the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who wound up for the Opposition—the tone of this debate has been rather different. At its lowest, it sank to inexcusable and nasty personal attacks on the Minister for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell). To one of the Opposition Members who made those attacks, I must point out that my right hon. Friend represents Airdrie and Shotts, not Glasgow. It is somewhat odd that a Member who referred to the nasty side of English nationalism should reveal such ignorance about Scotland.
The Government are determined to decentralise power, to open up government, to reform Parliament and to increase individual rights. The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Greater London authority and the proposals set out in our local government White Paper are all important examples of how government is being tailored to suit the circumstances of the different areas within the United Kingdom.
The debate about some form of self-government for parts of the United Kingdom seems always to have been with us. The response over the years—from the time of Lord Salisbury, who was mentioned in the debate—has been to provide for increasing administrative devolution, with powers and functions being exercised by the Secretary of State. But that was not matched with arrangements to ensure accountability to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—or, indeed, to the people of parts of England. The need for action to address that "democratic deficit" became more and more pressing. Only by taking action to relieve those concerns could we provide a sound framework to maintain and secure the long-term future of the United Kingdom.
Some would argue that devolution means the end of the UK as we know it. That tends to be the cry of those who are resistant to change, and have resisted it over the years. We want there to be change, where appropriate, to address real concerns, because we know that resistance, especially unthinking resistance, to change has given added force to the voices of those who argue that there is no possibility of responding to the legitimate concerns for more devolved government in different parts of the United Kingdom.
Any student of the history of these islands who thinks about the debates in this House more than a century ago, when the idea of some degree of devolution in Ireland was first considered, will recognise the force of the argument that unthinking resistance to change does not guarantee the integrity of the United Kingdom. The Government are determined to support the continued integrity of the United Kingdom by responding to the legitimate concerns of the different elements within the UK who wish to see more devolved power.
Mrs. Gorman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)

603
that referendums are an important part of his party's new democratic outlook? If so, will he explain why the people who live in England are not allowed to have a referendum to express those views—if, indeed, they hold them?
Mr. Raynsford: I have two answers for the hon. Lady. First, I agree with the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). Secondly, I must remind her that she is wrong, because one of the referendums involved the people of London, who had an explicit opportunity to say whether they wanted a degree of devolved power within London—power that is currently exercised by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but which will in future be exercised by a democratically elected London mayor. I shall deal with that element in a moment.
The first step in our regional agenda for England was to establish regional development agencies to improve competitiveness and to provide for effective co-ordination of economic development. The RDAs were established last December and became operational on 1 April.
We expect RDAs to become powerhouses for regional economic development. Currently only two English regions exceed the European average in terms of GDP. That cannot be right, and we must take action to tackle that deficit. RDAs are now lead bodies at regional level for co-ordinating inward investment initiatives, raising skills, improving the competitiveness of business, and social and physical regeneration.
Our aim is for RDAs to provide a framework for economic decision making in the regions, and to give a better strategic focus. They need to support and enhance national policies, while addressing the needs of the regions. We are also encouraging the formation of regional chambers to build up the voice of the regions within the current framework.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) chided us for the delay in proceedings, but last month we designated the first ever regional chambers—in the north-west, the east midlands and the west midlands. Chambers in other regions are currently under consideration. We are proceeding, as the hon. Gentleman knows, on the basis of consent and the views of the different regions, which, as he acknowledged in his speech, is an appropriate approach. We shall continue in that vein.
604
The chambers are voluntary groupings of local councillors and representatives of the various sectors with a stake in a region's economic, social and environmental well-being.
Mr. Maclean: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Raynsford: Very briefly, because I am trying to respond to a debate, and I have been given only 10 minutes in which to do so.
Mr. Maclean: Is the Minister aware that in the north-west, which he has mentioned, the regional chamber is already planning to call itself the north-west regional assembly, and that 70 per cent. of its members are councillors, with not much representation from productive industry?
Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly extremely unhappy about the idea of a chamber or regional assembly in his region, but we believe that it is right that the voices of those who have proper responsibilities in the region should be taken into account. That includes councillors, as well as representatives of other sectors. As I have already said, the chambers are representative of a wider group of people than councillors. As the RDAs are business led, it is appropriate that there should be a counterbalance in the form of the chambers, which involve democratic representation.
We have given the chambers a specific role in relation to RDAs—to help make them responsive to regional views and to give an account of themselves to those with an interest in their work. We also remain committed to move in due course to directly elected regional government where there is a demand for it. How quickly we move in that direction will depend in large part on the success of the RDAs and regional chambers—
Mr. Gray: What about England?
Mr. Raynsford: I am trying to talk about England. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, who took a great deal of time to talk in absurdly inflated and extravagant language, had allowed me rather more time—[Interruption.]—and were not barracking me now, they might learn something on the subject, instead of pandering to their own prejudices.

Human Rights (Pakistan)
12.30 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: I begin by expressing my gratitude for this opportunity for a debate on human rights in Pakistan and the related persecution of the millions of Ahmadi people in that country. The worldwide headquarters of the Ahmadi people is in Putney, to where the supreme head of the people has had to move following threats to his life in Pakistan.
The Ahmadis are one of the 72 sects of Islam, although it should be remembered that there are even more sects in Christianity. Within Islam, the Sunni and Shi'ite sects are far larger, but there are about 20 million Ahmadis and the sect is growing quickly. The House of Commons Library estimates that there are about 5 million Ahmadis in Pakistan.
Discrimination against all minority religions in Pakistan is severe. Other hon. Members may wish to mention the plight of Christians, but the laws afflicting the Ahmadis are the most severe, involving life imprisonment and the death penalty for the simple profession of the Ahmadi faith.
The constitution of Pakistan, founded under Muhammed Ali Jinnah in 1948, is based on religious tolerance. Only in 1974 did the Government of Mr. Bhutto amend the constitution to deem Ahmadis to be non-Muslims. In 1984, General Zia ul-Haq passed ordnance 20, which made it a criminal offence, subject to imprisonment, to describe Ahmadis as Muslims. Even after the lifting of martial law in 1985, the constitutional position remained unchanged, and in 1986, the death penalty was introduced for forms of blasphemy—a measure aimed at the Ahmadis in particular.
In 1992, the death penalty was made mandatory. Amnesty International commented at the time that it was concerned that
"under the amended form of Section 295-C of Pakistan's Penal Code, members of the minority Ahmadiyya Community may face the death penalty as a mandatory punishment for the exercise of their religious beliefs."
Of course, they now do. The democratic Governments of Pakistan since then have continued the use of ordnance 20 and the blasphemy laws to persecute the Ahmadis in Pakistan.
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion has long been recognised as the basic human right by all religions and all civilised societies. That right is enshrined in the founding charter of the United Nations, and in the United Nations charter on human rights—both of which have been signed by the Government of Pakistan.
When the then President of Pakistan, General Zia ul-Haq, was told by members of the UN Commission on Human Rights that ordnance 20 contravened the UN charter, he replied that Ahmadis personally offended him, that he was aware that ordnance 20 violated human rights but that he did not care. When she was Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto said that Ahmadis
"were declared non-Muslim in my father's rule. How can I undo the great service my father did for Islam? My Government will not give any concessions to Ahmadis."
The present Government of Mian Nawaz Sharif follow the same restrictive practice of persecuting members of the Ahmadian movement on any and all charges, which
606
include charges of un-Islamic activities, blasphemy, and even of calling themselves Muslim. During the latest census, many new Ahmadis were prosecuted for declaring themselves to be Ahmadis and Muslims. That shows not only a blatant breach of confidentiality by the Government in releasing such information, but it institutionalises persecution of the Ahmadis at the highest level. However, Pakistan is a peculiar state, which has chosen to legislate and enact laws, such as the recent anti-terrorism provisions, to target Ahmadis and to make the laws more barbarous and unbearable.
I shall give a couple of instances of that. An Ahmadi Muslim was accused by non-Ahmadis that he had preached and propagated his faith to the villagers, and was brought before the specially constituted anti-terrorist court. In spite of strenuous denials, the case was considered proven under Pakistan's penal code ordnance 295-C. He was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment and was fined 100,000 rupees. Only in Pakistan is preaching considered to be a terrorist offence.
Then there is the case of Mirza Ghulam Qader, a high official and a nephew of the supreme head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. He was murdered in broad daylight in front of many people. The assassins took refuge in a school and took the children hostage, before being killed in a shoot-out with the police. Large amounts of heavy weaponry, including rocket launchers, sub-machine guns and hand grenades, were recovered from the assassins' vehicle, which I believe pointed to a deeper conspiracy. Within two days, all the recovered weapons disappeared from police custody, leaving no proof or evidence of the offence.
That was only one of the high-profile murders of Ahmadiyya members in Pakistan. In fact, in the past year many members of the community have been murdered in broad daylight in front of witnesses, but no one has been apprehended or prosecuted for the crimes. The murders were all religiously motivated, and the victims included doctors, engineers, lawyers, business men and eminent citizens of their areas.
The Islamic National Front issued a very large prize for the murder of, among others, Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the supreme head of the worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim community. That news was covered in many well known mass-circulation newspapers in Pakistan on 1 October 1988. The INF declaration said that
"any Muslim warrior who despatches this enemy of Islam to hell will be offered cash prizes of 1 million rupees."
The Government of Pakistan took no action against that incitement to international terrorism.
I should further point out that Pakistan alone among the Islamic states has taken this draconian stance towards the Ahmadis. So what should be done? I was pleased by the answer to a written question in the other place on 13 April this year, which stated that the Government have
"called upon the Government of Pakistan to prevent the misuse of that country's blasphemy laws and to introduce legislation which would abolish the death penalty for blasphemy."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 April 1999; Vol. 599, c. 118]
However, we need to do more to protect the rights of all minorities to freedoms of religion.
Therefore, the following questions suggest themselves. Pakistan is a full member of the United Nations and a signatory to the UN human rights charter. At the next review, would it be possible for the British Government to

607
take up the case of religious freedom in Pakistan? The US President has already spoken in support of the repeal of ordnance 20.
The UN Commission on Religious Intolerance is taking evidence. Can the Government support the petition of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Pakistan, and work to remove the fatwah placed on the supreme head of the Ahmadiyya community, as they have done successfully in other cases?
Pakistan is a member of the Commonwealth, whose human rights initiative, chaired by Dr. Kamal Hussein of Bangladesh, recently published its report on the right to cultural tolerance in all Commonwealth countries. Will the Government ensure that this report is fully debated at the Commonwealth conference in Durban, South Africa, this autumn? Will they also ensure that the situation in Pakistan is brought to the attention of all those present, perhaps in terms of a review of the 1991 Harare declaration, which Pakistan signed? That declaration spoke of
"fundamental human rights, including equal rights and opportunities for all citizens, regardless of race, colour"
or creed.
I hope that my hon. Friend will respond to me in writing in connection with those questions, but an additional question involves all Members of the House. Would it be possible for colleagues, at meetings of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, to raise our abhorrence of ordnance 20 and the blasphemy laws? An appropriate opportunity to raise those matters would be that organisation's annual conference this September.
The Ahmadis expect that clerics of other sects or faiths may object to their religion. Their criticism—and mine—is not of that. What is different in this case is that the Pakistani Government have institutionalised and supported such objections with the death penalty or life imprisonment.
The Putney debates of 1647 in St. Mary's church, Putney, speak down the centuries. The belief, which I share, is that it is not the state's responsibility to determine the religion of its subjects. Religion is personal and private. To any Government, all subjects should be equal when it comes to their personal and religious inclinations.
I shall finish by connecting this matter and the Jewish faith. This week is Anne Frank week. On 11 June, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, His Excellency Chief Emeka Anyaoku, will sign the Anne Frank declaration for the new millennium on behalf of the Commonwealth nations. It includes a pledge that people should work together for a better world, free of bigotry in the next millennium. Anne Frank was 15 when she died for her faith.
A 14-year-old boy, Nazir Ahmed, is in central prison, Hydrabad, Sind, awaiting sentence under the blasphemy laws as an Ahmadi. The sentence could be life imprisonment or death. Many Pakistanis must be repulsed and disgusted by that. May I recommend to the Government of Pakistan that they think about the fate of Anne Frank, the declaration and that 14-year-old boy, and repeal ordnance 20 and the blasphemy laws forthwith? By doing so they can demonstrate that Pakistan is a full member of the Commonwealth nations for the new millennium.
12.41 pm
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing this important debate. The headquarters of the Ahmadi community lie in his constituency, but I have the privilege of having the Ahmadi education and conference centre, called Islamabad, at Tilford. In the summer, up to 10,000 members of the Ahmadi community from around the world gather there. Tilford is a beautiful Surrey village, and it is a tribute to the community that the Ahmadis are valued, respected and well integrated. Around 25 families live there permanently.
During my time as a Member I have heard appalling tales of unhappiness and discrimination. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is appalling, given that Pakistan is a signatory to the United Nations declaration on human rights, that we cannot take further steps to protect a well-educated, civilised and public-spirited community. In Pakistan, the press is gagged; the judiciary appears to play to the gallery and there are arrests, trumped-up charges and assaults; employment opportunities are constrained; and there is no freedom of speech or religion.
In February, I put a question to the Minister's predecessor, Derek Fatchett. At the same time as the hon. Member for Putney, I received a reply in which Mr. Fatchett said that he had raised the matter during a recent visit to Pakistan. He had been assured by a Minister that the Pakistani Government were determined to ensure that all religious minorities received the rights granted to them by the constitution. That Minister was examining ways of ensuring that religious minorities could play their full part as equal citizens of Pakistan.
Mr. Fatchett said that the Government would monitor closely the situation of the religious minorities in Pakistan and would raise further concerns with the Pakistani Government. In the present climate, we would all agree that that is not enough. The hon. Member for Putney made specific and practical suggestions on how we could put greater weight behind the campaign to ensure that the Ahmadi community's human rights are recognised not only in the United Kingdom, but in Pakistan.
12.43 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on his success in securing a debate that gives the House a timely chance to discuss an important issue that is rightly causing concern here and elsewhere.
From the outset, the Government have ensured that the promotion and observance of human rights has been at the very heart of our foreign policy. Intolerance, wherever it occurs and in whatever guise, is unacceptable. It is particularly disturbing that we are debating intolerance in Pakistan, a country with which Britain has so many links—history, culture, trade, development, sport and, of course, for many, family ties. Ours is a warm relationship of mutual respect, which allows us to speak freely to each other about our respective concerns.
My hon. Friend has specifically raised concerns about Pakistan's Ahmadiyya community. We share his concerns about the position of the Ahmadis, as we do about the position of other religious minorities in Pakistan, including Christians and Hindus. Those responsible for the establishment of Pakistan were wholly committed to

609
religious tolerance. On the day of partition, the founding father of Pakistan, Muhammed Ali Jinnah, inspired and reassured the new citizens of a new nation with the words:
"You may belong to any religion, cast or creed … There is no discrimination, no distinction between one community or another."
Those values are reflected in Pakistan's constitution. Article 20 says:
"Subject to law, public order and morality, (a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion; and (b) every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions."
Unfortunately, while the constitutional framework is clear, particular legal acts continue to give cause for concern, especially the controversial blasphemy laws. Article 295(c) of Pakistan's penal code prescribes the death penalty for those who by words, spoken or written, directly or indirectly, are taken to defile the name of the prophet Muhammed. The law has frequently been misused by groups and individuals to target members of religious minorities. Accusations of blasphemy can lead and have led to death sentences being handed down, although none has yet been carried out.
We have repeatedly asked the Pakistani Government to amend or abolish the blasphemy laws, of which Ahmadis are frequent victims. During our European Union presidency last year, we made representations in May. In October, we joined a further EU initiative about the blasphemy laws. At the recent Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva, the EU called for abolition of the death penalty for blasphemy.
The Ahmadi community do not believe that Pakistan's constitution gives them full freedom of faith. A constitutional amendment passed in 1974 declares them to be non-Muslim. That resulted in a change to Pakistan's penal code forbidding them the right to practise their religion as Muslims. Specifically, they cannot openly use traditional Islamic words, phrases or greetings without risking arrest and punishment of up to three years imprisonment plus a fine. That law, like the blasphemy laws, is open to abuse.
We know that there is a great deal of worry among the Ahmadis—indeed, among other minorities—about Pakistan's new anti-terrorist law. In particular, there is a fear that the new offence of civil commotion will be abused. Ahmadis have voiced fears that arrest under the blasphemy laws will result in cases being heard by the new anti-terrorist courts, in which there is no right of appeal. We have urged the Pakistani Government to implement the new laws fairly and responsibly.
Another piece of legislation, the Shariah Bill, has given rise to further concern over the position of non-Muslims in Pakistan. Although the Bill, which has yet to pass Pakistan's Senate—where it has failed to achieve the two thirds majority required if it is to become law—specifically protects the rights of religious minorities, there are fears that its wider effects may be to lower tolerance for religious diversity and women's rights. We do not consider that the proposed Bill is inimical to human rights per se, but we have urged on the Pakistani Government that the new law should adhere to internationally accepted human rights standards.
Those concerns relate to individual legal instruments, but the wider public and political atmosphere is equally important. We are worried by signs that general
610
intolerance is on the increase. In relation to the Ahmadis in particular, we were greatly concerned by the recent decision of the Punjab provincial assembly to change the name of the principal Ahmadi town in Pakistan, Rabwah. In the wake of that, two senior Ahmadi leaders, Colonel Ayaz Muhammed and Mirza Masroor Ahmed, were charged under the blasphemy laws. We are watching their cases—and others—closely.
From what I have said, hon. Members will recognise that one of the main problems facing the Ahmadis and other religious minorities in Pakistan is the apparent gap between the protection that Pakistan's constitution gives to religious minorities and the drafting of individual laws and their day-to day implementation.
That is the very point that the late Derek Fatchett made during his visit to Pakistan in February, which the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) mentioned. He raised the issue of religious minorities with Pakistan's Minister of Law. He told the Minister of the great concern in the United Kingdom about the rights of religious minorities in Pakistan. The Minister acknowledged the concern outside Pakistan's borders, but said that there was great concern in Pakistan too. He said that the Government of Pakistan were concerned that all religious minorities received the rights given to them under Pakistan's constitution and that he would consult his colleague, the Minister for Religious Affairs, to examine ways to ensure that members of religious minorities are full and equal citizens of Pakistan. We will continue to keep that situation in mind.
We approach this subject as a concerned friend of Pakistan. It is with that in mind that we regularly raise these issues with the Pakistani Government. I am sure that the House will agree that it is important that we recognise where problems lie, but we must also recognise and acknowledge the efforts being made to put things right. Where we can, we must help those efforts.
It was in that spirit that last month, senior Foreign Office officials discussed a wide range of human rights issues with their Pakistani counterparts in Islamabad. The reports of religious persecution, the blasphemy laws and the anti-terrorist law were among the topics discussed. Pakistani officials acknowledged that religious tolerance was a cultural as well as a legal problem. We will of course continue to follow closely the progress on each issue.
It is important that the legal framework is right, and we will continue to urge the Pakistani Government to ensure that their laws are just and justly enforced. However, the key to changing wider social attitudes is education. Tolerance and respect for other cultures, religions and nationalities can be encouraged and, indeed, taught. It is there that we can make a practical difference.
The UK development programme for Pakistan, run by the Department for International Development, is worth approximately £25 million a year. It places a strong emphasis on improvements in human rights in all its projects and includes regular dialogue with the Government of Pakistan, other donors and advocacy groups in Pakistan about human rights issues. Current projects that are directly tackling human rights in Pakistan include a police training project for senior officers. We also hope to be able to do more to promote access for marginalised groups to the criminal justice system.

611
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office also sponsors human rights projects in Pakistan. In Karachi, for example, Shell and the FCO have co-sponsored a human rights education project that has produced a human rights textbook on the rights of the child for use in schools It is proving very successful. We are actively pursuing other proposals.
For all the justifiable concern that reports of human rights problems and religious intolerance in Pakistan have caused, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney will agree that there remain grounds for considerable hope in Pakistan. The vast majority of the Pakistani people believe in the right to worship for each and every individual according to their beliefs. We believe that the Pakistani Government are sincere in wanting to tackle religious intolerance, which damages their country and its international reputation. We will continue to monitor reports of religious intolerance wherever they may occur and to raise our concerns, but change will not occur overnight. We are ready to offer practical help through our development aid programme.
Mr. Colman: I would like my hon. Friend to take up the points that I made—I realise that he has only just heard them—and raise them at the Commonwealth conference in Durban this autumn. In particular, will he take up the essence of the Harare declaration, which is relevant in this situation?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend anticipated my next sentence. I made a detailed note of the thoughtful suggestions in his excellent speech. I shall write to him in detail on each point. I hope that he would prefer a detailed exposition of the Government's response to my perhaps ad hoc observations.
Religious diversity is a fact in Pakistan, as it is in this country and that should be welcomed. Pakistan is the richer for the presence of religious minorities such as Ahmadis, Christians and Hindus, who will all contribute to the future of that great country.
12.55 pm
Sitting suspended.

Telecommunications
1 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: I begin with a confession: recently, I have been spending rather a lot of time in the company of Mr. Bill Gates. Not literally, I hasten to add; I suppose that "virtually" would be the way to put it. I have recently acquired two of his books—one of which was free, although I bought the other. The book that has had a great effect on me is "Business at the Speed of Thought". At the end of about 300 pages of Mr. Gates enthusing about the growth in the internet and what he calls "the web life style"—with a name like mine, I am also very enthusiastic about the Webb life style—it is difficult to avoid the sense that, although one suspects that Mr. Gates has his own agenda on the issue, even if only part of what he describes comes true, there is a tremendous opportunity for British business, education and consumers. It is important that we do not miss that opportunity.
My contention, therefore, is that we must get telecommunications regulation right. It is not unfair to say that the present regulation was largely not framed with the internet in mind. I am well aware that the regulation is under urgent review and I hope that we shall hear more about the direction of the thinking on that matter during the debate. I argue that there is a problem and will cite some statistics in evidence. Obviously, there are different statistics showing how far behind Europe is compared with the United States. A report from Jupiter Communications suggests that only 18 per cent. of United Kingdom households are on-line, compared with 44 per cent. in the US. The report notes that, although that gap will close, and in four years' time, the UK figure may have risen to 41 per cent., by that time, the US figure will be 63 per cent. I am sure that the figures will vary according to definitions, but there is clear evidence of a gap and of a problem that needs to be addressed.
Some other problems are tied in with telecommunications regulation issues—for example, telephone communication charging structures and their implication for the structure and location of British business. Once this debate became common knowledge, I received several emails, including one from a young man aged 20, who lives in Bradley Stoke in my constituency. He described himself as an internet entrepreneur. I am delighted that such people live in my patch, and look forward to meeting that young man. He tells me that, in his business, the huge cost of local calls—running into thousands of pounds—or the cost of dedicated lines means that he has had to locate and register his business in the United States.
My constituency is home to many high-tech companies—Orange, TeleWest, Hewlett Packard and so on—so it should be a natural home for internet entr—epreneurs, even those aged 20. Clearly, if my constituent is being forced to relocate in the US, something somewhere must be wrong.
Mr. Richard Allan: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also a problem in that a business in the US can service European customers throughout Europe more cheaply than a business based in a European country? Does he agree that regulation is necessary to try to get rid of the cost of telecoms crossing national

613
boundaries in Europe? Such additional costs make the UK and other European countries uncompetitive compared with the US.
Mr. Webb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points. As chairman of the Select Committee on Information, he is most knowledgable on such matters. His points tie in with what I was saying. If telecommunications regulation is causing British entrepreneurs to site their businesses—either physically or virtually—in the US or elsewhere, there is clearly a problem to be addressed.
Before considering some possible solutions, I want to consider the problem of whether telecom giants—for want of a better word—are stifling the potential for expansion in this area. For example, I was told, by e-mail, about cable modems; that might be one way of facilitating greater access. Henry Jaremko of QE Data Ltd.—someone I had not met before—told me that he had tried for two years to get BT to sort out a cable modem for him. He was told that the company was considering the matter and researching it. He stated:
"I talk to friends and colleagues in the Netherlands and in America and they are all using cable modems NOW—they pay … £30 to £50 a month for the service and they get speeds typically five times faster than an average modem … More importantly for the fee … they are ONLINE ALL THE TIME."
He put that last phrase in capitals, which means that he was shouting at me. He continued:
"There is no concept of dialling—their computers are permanently wired to the net from their homes or offices."
Mr. Ian Bruce: As they have initiated this welcome debate, I am sure that Liberal Democrats were only too pleased to receive messages. Last night, I had dinner with representatives from several telecoms companies; they told me that, within weeks—literally—we shall receive announcements from several sources about a fixed fee, on-line all the time, to an internet provider. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that we should get the regulation right. The regulation is already in place; the market will provide the solution for the UK. Despite the fact that our telephone calls are already cheap, he is right to identify the problems on the internet side, but I think that the solution will occur soon.
Mr. Webb: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. I am sure that the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry will be aware of the latest developments and will be able to brief us on them.
I do not know how new cable modems are, but Mr. Jaremko says that other European companies seem to have managed to take up that new technology. Is BT a slumbering giant? Is that why the company has not moved as fast as it might have done to take up that technology? I have also been briefed about digital subscriber loops. That is a new world to me, but it seems to be another form of technology that would provide a means for extensive internet access. However, again there seems to be a problem with an incumbent supplier, who is perhaps not as innovative as possible.
We have a series of problems. What could be the cause? One obvious candidate—although it is not the sole problem—is the cost of local calls. In the US, local calls
614
are free in many circumstances, whereas in the UK, local calls are metered with a 5p minimum charge. That 5p charge may be relevant when one is going on-line, receiving e-mails and coming off-line, and it may discourage people from doing that regularly. However, my key concern is the metering of local calls and its implications. In terms of e-commerce, I draw an analogy with being charged for window shopping in the high street. Retailers would be appalled if that were the case, yet we make people pay by the minute for window shopping on the internet.
Some people might respond that Freeserve has come in and everyone is on-line so the problem is solved. However, we are talking not only about people being on-line, but about using the internet as part of their "life style"—as a servant in business, education and leisure. Being on-line and having access is only part of the battle, we then have to use the thing. There is evidence that usage increases when metered charges are abolished and replaced with fees. When America OnLine moved from one structure to the other in 1996, monthly use went up from an average of 14 minutes to 33 minutes over three months. The average figure is now an hour a day for that company. Of course, there are limits, but, if the internet is to be a servant and is to be part of our lives, we must remove the marginal cost to a greater or a lesser extent.
The Minister will probably recall that, when I wrote to him on this subject, his response was that average telecom charges are low in the UK. However, I am concerned not only with the average, but with the margins. Once one is on-line and has paid the set-up costs, one wants the marginal costs to be low to provide an incentive. Clearly, the costs are not as low here as they are in the US.
Assuming that greater coverage and use are good, what should we do? I make one query of that assumption. I am enthusiast in all those matters—I suppose that enthusiast is a euphemism for an anorak—but internet content is also relevant. As a parent, I am aware that there is material on the internet that I do not want my children to see, just as there is material on the top shelf of the newsagent that I do not want them to see. However, rationing by price—getting people to come off the internet—has nothing to do with that problem. It is vital that the problem is addressed, but we are tackling it in a haphazard and ineffective way. I have reservations about teenagers in their bedrooms spending hours on the net unsupervised. However, the issues that we are raising in the debate are not inconsistent with tackling that problem.
What can be done? The Campaign for Unmetered Telecommunications, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar, has been energetic and effective in publicising the issue. It has an excellent website at www.unmetered.org, and I have spent many happy minutes surfing it and then getting off-line. It quotes the "father of the web", Tim Berners-Lee, who says:
"universal internet access for all in a country is very important. To be practical, internet connections must be permanent … The time taken to dial up over a telephone line makes many uses of the internet … prohibitively bothersome. Regulatory systems and charging which support the status quo in which the telephone system is used to dial every time the internet is used hobble a country's ability to use the network—it is a bit like asking a motor vehicle to be preceded by a man carrying a red flag. It is forcing the new technology to operate in the mode of the old technology."
That final observation is a telling one. We are not talking about more people having PCs with modems in the back, or more people hopping on and off-line. We are

615
talking about—to use the awful phrase—the web life style, in which the internet is integral to our activities, but as a servant, not a master.
America OnLine has just surveyed more than 11,000 of its customers, almost all of whom cited local call costs as the main barrier to greater internet use. I know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. We are talking not about free local calls, but about unmetered local calls coupled with some sort of subscription charge—that is, trying to get marginal costs down and so increasing use.
Some might say that that is happening anyway and that the market will produce that result because, if that is what customers want, suppliers will provide it. However, it strikes me as inherently unlikely that the commercial interests of BT in a regulated environment will coincide exactly with society's best interests. BT has a job to do: it exists to make profits within the constraints imposed on it. Why should its pricing policy be identical to that which society wants in order to maximise internet use among lower income households, students and so on? Such a coincidence is unlikely to occur.
The market has made some progress, but there is no guarantee that it will take us where we want to go. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) and others would say that we are getting there: for example, Screaming.Net—a phrase I have been dying to get into Hansard—set up a freefone access system, but there are strings attached in that the customer has to change phone company and go over to Localtel. Mysteriously, BT has been slow in getting people over to Localtel: it claims that it underestimated demand, but Localtel says that it forewarned BT of the demand and that BT has simply not coped. The idea that BT would enthusiastically commit resources to moving its customers to someone else's business is hard to swallow—it would not be surprising if it did the bare minimum.
Last weekend, without making a lot of fuss—the announcement was made on the internet, because the company did not want many people to know, which is telling—BT gave free 48-hour internet access to BT internet subscribers. The company did not publicise that service, because it was not sure that it could cope with large-scale use. Strangely enough, the service proved extremely popular, but, once again, there were strings attached: it was provided only at the weekend, customers were logged off after 20 minutes if they did not do anything, and they were restricted to a maximum of 12 hours on-line at a time.
Perhaps we are inching in the right direction, but I doubt that the cultural shift that is necessary will take place without active Government intervention. In short, we need a new approach to those issues. Tim Berners-Lee says:
"Personally, having the luxury of a permanent … connection at home I notice the change of role a computer plays in the home—it becomes immeasurably more friendly. One is much more inclined to order things, pay bills, and check news and weather using it when one does not have to wait and bother with dialling into a service provider."
It seems to me that British skills and temperament are well suited to taking advantage of these great technological advances and to taking a world lead in using the internet for business, education and leisure. We have a great opportunity, but we are behind in the game, and the reasons for that can be found in the regulatory structure. I hope the Minister will assure us that he is
616
urging the Office of Telecommunications, Oftel, to encourage, not incremental change, but a cultural shift in the way in which we perceive the internet, which will be to the benefit of all our citizens.
1.14 pm
The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): I thank the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) for raising such a vital issue and congratulate him on securing the debate. I share his enthusiasm for the liberating and empowering potential of the internet for every individual and every business, large and small. He is right to identify that potential and the Government wholly agree with him.
I agree that we are in a transitional period. The technology is remarkably new—in fact it is remarkable in every way. If I may be a little extravagant at this point, never before in human history has a technology with such a profoundly transforming potential become available to so many people so rapidly. Inevitably, all sorts of questions arise about how we as a society cope with such an incredible new technology and, during this transitional period, we have to consider carefully every aspect of our actions in that respect.
I also agree that the widespread availability of a speedy access infrastructure and a high-quality backbone telecommunications network that is available at an affordable price are vital to the growth of the internet. Ultimately, those things will be best provided through effective competition in both telecommunications infrastructure and in the services provided through it.
That competition is already at work in the UK to give us the networks that we need in order to lead the world in this field early in the next century. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that effective competition depends on effective and appropriate regulation. We have one of the most liberalised telecommunications markets in the world. As a result of competition, the cost of calls is steadily decreasing, and that is to the benefit of all internet users. I shall run through the range of competition in this country, which is remarkable for the rate at which it has increased over the past few years.
In fixed-line telecommunications, 45 domestic public telecommunications operators are now licensed, an increase of nearly one third since May 1997, when there were 33. They provide their own infrastructure and services in competition with the former monopolist, BT. Three major cable television companies offer telecommunications services over their lines. In March 1997, there were 125 active cable franchises passing 8.2 million homes, with 2.3 million homes connected. By January this year, the number of active cable franchises had increased to 134, with 11.5 million homes—more than half of all the homes in the UK—passed by cable and approximately 3.5 million connected. Those figures show an increase of more than 50 per cent. in less than two years.
More than 14.5 million people subscribe to the four mobile phone networks—a figure that has more than doubled since March 1997, when only 7.1 million people subscribed. The mobile phone market is now worth approximately £3.5 billion, or roughly one third of the fixed-line market. New pricing packages mean that the mobile phone market is increasingly competitive with fixed-line services. More than 100 companies are licensed

617
to provide international facilities. The DTI has licensed 73 new operators of international services since the general election, and BT's share of the international market is now less than 52 per cent.
As a result of all that competition, call prices have fallen by more than 50 per cent. in real terms since 1984, and there have been even more dramatic price cuts for international calls. However, competition is still increasing: the roll-out of cable and other fixed-line telecommunications is progressing steadily and, later this year, we are to auction off the third generation of mobile telephone licences, which will dramatically increase competition in that sector. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, that third generation will enable the provision of internet access through mobile phones.
We have an effective competitive framework for telecommunications in this country, but the hon. Gentleman was right to remind us that we must not be complacent. The Government are not complacent and are working to ensure that the regulatory framework develops in a way that continues to encourage competition and the provision of new services available to everybody.
A range of EC directives has reduced regulatory burdens and promoted competition across the EU. We continue to work with other member states on the 1999 review of the telecommunications regulatory framework in the EU to ensure that that process continues. Within the UK, the Government are reforming telecommunications regulation to ensure that it continues to promote competition effectively. For example, we are streamlining the process for modifying licences and we are consulting on a new appeals mechanism. In the longer term, as the hon. Member for Northavon mentioned, the Government are considering more fundamental reform to move away from the current prohibition-based licensing regime to a more flexible system. We shall publish further ideas on that in the follow-up to the convergence Green Paper later this month.
I receive much correspondence about the specific question of internet access. At present, most consumers access the internet through dial-up services—so-called narrowband access. That can be slow and cumbersome and, as the hon. Member for Northavon graphically described, is not necessarily the best way to access the internet. A key current issue is the provision of broadband access in the local loop. The question is how can we provide faster internet access and the ability to transfer much more data at high speeds, because that is the key to the effective roll-out of the technology.
Many new technologies are coming on stream to help to give consumers access to broadband services in the home. The hon. Member for Northavon mentioned digital subscriber line—or DSL—technology. Cable, satellite and terrestrial digital television services incorporating new interactive services will become available later this year. Cable modems, in particular, offer the prospect of much faster internet access without the need to dial up every time the user wants to go on to the net. As I have mentioned, third-generation mobiles will be another key innovation. We hope shortly to launch a consultation on making new spectrum available for fixed radio broadband access services.
Mr. Webb: The Minister mentioned cable modems. The chap who e-mailed me was concerned that those
618
have been available elsewhere for a couple of years. He approached BT and it said that it was getting round to it. Is the Minister worried that leaving it to competition is not making the advances in technology available quickly enough?
Mr. Wills: I shall address the impact of the current competitive situation in a moment, but we believe that competition is the best way and is working. 1 do not want to sound complacent, but all the lessons of recent history tell us that competition is the most effective way to roll out the technology, although that does not mean that there is no place for regulation.
OFFEL has just finished consultation on access to bandwidth which aimed to determine whether there were barriers to the commercial provision of high bandwidth services to residential and small business users, especially services using that approach. It also considered whether OFTEL needed to intervene to allow competing network operators to offer such services directly to customers, by renting BT's copper wires—the so-called local loop unbundling.
The outcome of that consultation will have a significant impact on the UK telecoms market and in particular on achieving our goal of affordable high-speed internet access to consumers. We are in close touch with OFTEL and I understand that it expects to publish its conclusions later this month. I hope that the hon. Member for Northavon will forgive me, but I cannot pre-empt that process. However, I can assure him that the issue is at the forefront of our minds.
The hon. Gentleman asked what effect competition is having and he gave us some figures. He is aware of the Government's intention to make this country the best place to do business electronically by 2002. We are making progress. More than 1 million people in the UK became internet users for the first time during the third quarter of 1998. Worldwide, the speed of take-up is unprecedented. We should not only compare the position in the past in this country, but examine what our competitors are doing.
Some 16 per cent. of our population had internet access by 1998 compared to 28 per cent. in the US. We are behind the US and we have to catch up, but the comparison with other competitors is better. We have higher figures than Japan at 11 per cent. and much of Europe—only 9 per cent. of the population of Germany have internet access and only 5 per cent. in France. Those comparisons were made before the recent developments in internet pricing, such as Freeserve, and we expect those figures to increase considerably. However, our competitors are also increasing access and we cannot be complacent. Our recent benchmarking survey showed that more than 60 per cent. of UK business now has internet access. More than 50 per cent. has a website. Website use has almost doubled and e-commerce has trebled since 1997. We have seen faster growth in that area than either Japan or the US. We had 30 per cent. growth in internet penetration among British business, and 40 per cent. growth in website penetration since 1998. That compares to 6 and 11 per cent. growth in Japan and 20 and 30 per cent. growth in the US. I accept that the US is starting from a higher base, but we have made considerable advances that show that competition is working.

619
The ambitious target that we set for 1 million small and medium-sized companies to be hooked up to a network by 2002 will probably be achieved by 2000. The technologies are rolling out quickly and, as I have said, that shows that competition is working.
I know that the issue of the cost of access is of great concern to the hon. Member for Northavon and many other people. Is the cost affecting the take-up of the technology? The short answer is no. Of course cost is a consideration, but there is no evidence to suggest that it is a significant barrier to take-up, especially for businesses. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, we are just below the OECD average costs for internet access for peak times and, at off-peak times, we are cheaper than the US. The hon. Gentleman, as a distinguished economist, will understand that there is no such thing as a free service: it must be paid for at some point in the process. The question is whether the packages are put together in a way that encourages as many people and businesses as possible to take them up.
I would not like the hon. Member for Northavon to be deluded about the possibility of free access, but companies are free to offer whatever innovative tariffing packages they wish. We have seen a great explosion of such packages in recent months. For example, Kingston Communications in Hull recently introduced a package of £12.77 per month plus 5.5p per call, no matter how long. Cable and Wireless Communications offer combined internet access and telephone charges from £5.99 per month. That includes the internet service provider subscription and up to 12 hours free online each month. NTL has launched a service providing high bandwidth internet connections for a flat rate of £40 a month. It is likely that such services will be rolled out more widely in the coming months. In addition, some internet service providers are now offering internet access on freefone numbers such as 0800 at off—peak times or weekends. The Government welcome such innovation in pricing packages which are delivering for consumers.
The hon. Member for Northavon is right to say that the market will not necessarily provide in all areas and the Government will have to step in. We are doing so to ensure that every school in the country is hooked up to the internet by 2002. We have made remarkable progress. In April 1998, only 20 per cent. of schools were hooked up and only 10 per cent. of those were connected through an integrated services data network link. In April 1999, just a year later, 40 per cent. of all schools were connected, including 30 per cent. via an ISDN. Our target, which we are confident of meeting, is 100 per cent. of schools connected by 2002, including 90 per cent. through an ISDN link. We must also ensure that we do not create a society of the information rich and the information poor. We have a program and a raft of initiatives—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must now turn to the next debate.

Surface Water Charges
1.30 pm
Jacqui Smith: I am glad to have this opportunity to raise an issue that is causing significant financial problems for community and public bodies in my constituency, throughout the county of Worcestershire and I suspect the entire area covered by Severn Trent Water. I draw the Minister's attention particularly to the effects of the change in charging for surface water drainage for non-domestic customers that has been implemented by that company. I ask the Minister to ensure that the Director General of Water Services considers this change and its disproportionate and damaging effects in detail.
The duties of the regulator, as laid down in the Water Industries Act 1991, state that the director general
"has a duty to customers to ensure that no undue preference is shown and that there is no undue discrimination in the way companies fix and recover charges, and that rural customers are protected".
My argument is that Severn Trent Water's surface water drainage charging policy does, and will, discriminate against non-domestic customers who are least able to pay and that it will also disadvantage rural non-domestic customers.
Surface water drainage is part of the sewerage service offered by water companies and, until 1990, Severn Trent Water charged all its customers on the basis of rateable value. Since then, new customers and those with substantially altered properties have been charged on the basis of surface area. The company is now in the midst of a three-year plan to convert all existing customers from the rateable value basis for calculating charges to a system based on the total site area that the properties occupy. That transfer of the vast majority of non-domestic properties is causing the difficulties that I shall address. It is also important to note that my research and contacts with other water companies suggest that no other water company has chosen to make that change.
As the director general points out in his "Report on Tariff Structures and Charges 1999-2000", companies currently charge for surface drainage in a variety of ways. For example, they charge as part of foul sewerage charges through the volumetric tariff, as a flat fee within the fixed charge or through a combination of both, by reference to the rateable value of the property, or via a charge related to the surface area that drains to the public sewer. Severn Trent Water appears to be the only company that has chosen the last option.
I accept that there appears to be a certain logic in charging for drainage on the basis of the size of the area drained. However, as I will demonstrate, the results of that change in practice have been far from fair or logical. The director general may have foreseen some of those difficulties in his 1991 report on water payments when he said that, although surface and highway drainage raised a number of charging issues, recovering the costs associated with those services by reference to the volume of water delivered to customers—that is, instead of the surface area—might be simpler than, and just as good as, other approaches. When I look in detail at the effects of Severn Trent Water's decision, I believe increasingly that the director general was right.
I want to consider in detail the implications of those changes on two types of customers: first, village halls and community centres; and, secondly, schools within

621
Worcestershire. I was first alerted to this issue about a year ago when a village hall in Feckenham in my constituency contacted me. Prior to September 1997, it had paid water bills on the basis of its rateable value. In September 1997, a meter was fitted and it therefore moved to the new site area method of calculating surface water drainage. The effect of the change was a 310 per cent. increase in the charge for sewerage services. The new sewerage charge would have been more than the total water and sewerage bill before the change and the surface water drainage element was by far the largest component of the bill. We should remember that the charge was levied for the service of draining rain water from a property. Can that really be the most costly part of the provision of water and sewerage services?
An administrative difficulty associated with the change became evident at this point. After the village hall appealed to Severn Trent Water, the company surveyed the site properly and agreed that some parts did not drain into its sewers and could therefore be removed from the site area calculation. To the company's credit, it has clearly been willing to put right the many mistakes made in calculating the surface area. However, those mistakes occurred originally because the work of estimating the surface area was put out to contractors who referred simply to ordnance survey maps and made no attempt to determine whether any parts of the total surface area, such as playing fields or lawns, did not drain to the areas served by Severn Trent Water. Furthermore, although the site area taken into consideration was reduced, the Feckenham village hall was left with a 165 per cent. increase in its sewerage charge.
Severn Trent Water and Ofwat have made much of the company's willingness to consider an abatement when part of a site does not drain into the company's sewer. However, for the vast majority of the community and public services affected, that will be just a drop in the ocean—or should I say the sewer—compared with the significant effect of the shift from rateable value to surface area charging.
Following my intervention and pressure from the village hall committee, the Feckenham village hall received a stay of execution as Severn Trent Water agreed that the basis of its surface water charging could revert to rateable value. However, without a change in policy, the village hall volunteers will have to meet the increase next April. The Hereford and Worcester community council and Action with Communities in Rural England—ACRE—have also highlighted the difficulties caused by the company's policy, providing examples of one Worcestershire village community centre that is facing an £800 increase in its water bill and another village hall that will see its bill increase from £550 to £2,000 per year.
Following publicity about the issue, I was contacted by Worcestershire county council which expressed its concern about the effect of the change in water charges on its public buildings, particularly schools. Due to the administrative difficulties and complications inherent in the new system and disputes about the surface areas that should be included in the calculations, Worcestershire county council only recently received detailed information from Severn Trent Water about the effects of the charging changes. The overall effect of this change alone will increase water bills in the county by nearly £200,000.
622
One school in Inkberrow in my constituency faces a yearly increase of £2,560 or 1,106 per cent.—in its water bill. Another school faces an increase of 779 per cent. and one of the smallest first schools in the town faces an increase of £787—or 449 per cent.—in its water bill.
Mr. David Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. As a fellow Worcestershire Member of Parliament, I assure the House that this problem affects the whole county. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government did not allocate extra money to health and education in order to top up Severn Trent Water's dividend? Does she agree also that this problem affects not only schools and community associations but commercial premises? A chain manufacturer in my constituency faced a 250 per cent. increase in his water bill. After we argued the case with the water company, the increase was reduced to 6 per cent. Throughout the Severn Trent Water area, businesses face rising water bills, and the jobs of our constituents are under threat merely so that that company's already massive profits can increase.
Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I know that he has been active in raising the issue.
My particular concern is schools. In my constituency, water bills for schools will increase by a total of £24,000 next April. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that money must come from tight education budgets when, as we all agree, it should be spent in the classroom to improve standards.
When I wrote to Severn Trent Water and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions last year about my concerns, both pointed out that any change to charges will result in winners and losers. I agree, but in this case we must consider who will be the losers and the disproportionate extent to which they will lose.
Mr. Richard Burden: Like my hon. Friend, I have raised this issue with Severn Trent Water and Ofwat and received the same reply about winners and losers. The problem does not relate to rural areas alone, although my hon. Friend rightly stressed their importance, but to urban areas, commercial premises, schools and public buildings. Surely we need more research to find out who are the losers and whether some are subject to undue discrimination. I asked Ofwat and Severn Trent Water what research they did before embarking on the policy, and I await the response with interest.
Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I shall refer to that later in my speech. I am grateful that hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised the problems caused by the charges set by Severn Trent Water.
The company has argued that the change will be revenue neutral, but if that is the case, some of its non-domestic customers must think that Christmas has come early. Of course, anyone who substantially gained from the change would be unlikely to contact their Member of Parliament to complain, but given Severn Trent Water's assertion and the village halls and schools

623
that are facing the significant losses that I have outlined, it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) said, incumbent on the company to provide evidence to the director general about the customers who will gain from the change and the extent to which they will benefit.
To return to my point about the nature of the losers, I am concerned that the losses appear to be hitting community and public facilities. The effect of the change is regressive in that it hits services that have little ability to find money to pay the increased charges. The determining factor for the organisations that have been hit badly by the change is the relationship between the rateable value of their property and the surface area that it occupies. In other words, the losers are the non-domestic customers whose property has a low rateable value but a high surface area. Those properties tend to be public buildings and they are predominantly in rural areas.
It is not only the nature of the losers that causes concern but the extent of their losses. Increases of hundreds of per cent. in sewerage charges are not isolated occurrences. It is not reasonable for any customer of a utility to face such enormous increases. Those increases are particularly unreasonable when they will also have social costs. Furthermore, the distorting effect of the change is demonstrated by the large proportion of the overall bill that surface water charges now constitute for many non-domestic customers. That cannot be a true reflection of the costs involved, which the director general set as a priority for charging schemes.
Having outlined the difficulties being caused by the change to surface water charging by Severn Trent Water, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to undertake to instruct the water regulator—the Director General of Water Services—to consider in detail the effects of the change, with particular reference, as I have already said, to where the losses occur, the disproportionate nature of the increases and the extent to which the new system fulfils his demand that charges should more clearly reflect the costs of delivering the service.
I am encouraged that my hon. Friend will be able to do that following the extension of the director general's powers to approve charging schemes introduced in the Water Industry Bill. I am further encouraged by a letter sent to ACRE in February in which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment stated:

"Water companies will have the prime responsibility for considering and proposing their charges schemes. However, these will be subject to approval by OFWAT, and Ministers will have powers to ensure that particular issues are addressed in charges schemes".
Later in the letter, he stated:
"where charges for sewerage are covered by companies' charges schemes—including, for instance, surface water drainage—it will be for the Director General, under the provisions of the Bill, to consider whether to approve such charges schemes."
The director general should outline in his consideration whether Severn Trent Water should allow non-domestic customers to opt for their surface water charges to continue to be based on rateable values. That would be appropriate given the repeal of section 145 of the Water Industry Act 1991 in the Water Industry Bill. In its literature, Severn Trent Water has used the need to comply with section 145 as the justification for the change. Now that the need has been removed, it should offer customers the option to stay with rateable values for surface water charging.
624
The social costs caused to non-commercial and non-profit-making organisations by those large increases in water charges highlight the demand of organisations such as ACRE that a third tier of water charging should exist for such customers, who fall between commercial and household customers. Severn Trent Water has recognised that there is a distinction to be made because it was willing to defer the introduction of the higher charges for customers and properties that it defined as "sensitive". Those included registered charities and any other non-commercial or non-profit-making organisation. That sensitivity will not disappear next April when Severn Trent Water intends to impose the increased charges. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that the company should recognise the particular position of those community and public bodies and find a third way to deal with their water charges.
In conclusion, this change to surface water charging will impose significant social costs; it will hit those who are least able to pay; it is administratively difficult for all involved; and it will drain resources from vital public services such as education. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me and other hon. Friends in resisting the change and seeking a fairer solution.
1.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) on securing this debate and for setting out clearly why surface water drainage charges are a major local concern. I thank her for her generosity in affording time to my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) to express the concerns of their constituents which should be brought to the attention of the House.
Water is an essential service, vital for life and health. The Government believe that a charging system must reflect that fact, ensuring that customers are not deprived of water for drinking, washing, cooking and sanitation. The principles behind our policy are to provide a system of charges that are fair and affordable, particularly for vulnerable customers, to protect public health, to ensure that water supplies are used in a sustainable way and to protect the aquatic environment. We believe that consumer choice should lie at the heart of the new system.
Our consultation document, "Water Charging in England and Wales—A New Approach", set out a number of proposals that we believe offer customers greater fairness and choice. We are now taking our proposals forward through the Water Industry Bill.
It cannot be right for anyone to be deprived of essential water because they cannot afford to pay their water bill. The loss of water supply can have a severe effect not only on the individual consumer but on wider public health concerns. The Water Industry Bill therefore prohibits household disconnection, and ensures that premises providing key services to the community cannot be deprived of their water supply because of non-payment. That provision extends to institutions such as schools, hospitals and nursing homes and children's homes.
We also recognise that some customers—those with high essential use of water—could suffer severe hardship if required to pay on the basis of a measured bill. We propose to ensure that targeted and effective protection

625
is available for vulnerable households. Those entitled to protection should be large families on low incomes and those with medical conditions requiring a high use of water, although we would be happy to consider targeted proposals to protect other groups if a case could be made that they would suffer severe hardship.
We wish to extend customer choice in water charging as far as is practicable. Household customers should have a right to remain on an unmeasured charge when they are using water for essential purposes only. In ruling out universal compulsory metering, we have accepted that meters may suit the circumstances of some customers with low water use. Therefore, household customers should be able to opt for a meter, to be installed free, with the protection that those who do so may revert to an unmeasured charge within one year. In addition, the Bill will remove the deadline for use of rateable values in calculating charges. That fulfils our commitment to continue permitting water companies to use rateable value for charging, avoiding the need for significant upheavals in charging arrangements.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch said, the Director General of Water Services is responsible for economic regulation by controlling companies' overall price limits, ensuring that changes to charges, such as those that my hon. Friend has mentioned, cannot be used as a device to boost company income and profits. The director general also has a responsibility to ensure that charges do not reflect undue preference for, or unduly discriminate against, any class or group of customers. However, the director general does not currently have more specific powers over the individual elements of companies' charges.
The Water Industry Bill will give the director general new powers to approve water companies' charging schemes, and will enable Ministers to give the director general guidance on the exercise of those powers. That represents an important new assurance for customers, and will put greater pressure on companies to consider carefully and thoroughly the impact of their proposals. It is essential that water companies create charging arrangements that are responsive to their customers' concerns and reflect local needs.
Severn Trent Water—as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch said—charges households for surface and highway drainage by reference to the rateable value of the property. Properties without a rateable value pay a charge related to property type. Severn Trent Water—again as my hon. Friend stated—has embarked on a programme of charging non-household customers on a site area basis. Its intention is that all non-household customers will be charged on that basis by March 2000.
Anglian Water, Welsh Water and South West Water charge for surface and highway drainage through volumetric charge. North West Water, Northumbrian Water, Southern Water, Thames Water and Wessex Water include surface and highway drainage in their standing charges. Northumbrian Water is the only company other than Severn Trent Water that charges non-household properties by a method different from that applied to households. Those companies use a method that refers to rateable value rather than a site area based charging system.
626
The Government understand the concerns that have been expressed about Severn Trent Water's method of charging non-household properties for surface water drainage. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch had occasion to say, any change to underlying charging methods will be likely to throw up winners and losers. Planning how to handle the consequence of change, including identifying likely losers and developing transitional arrangements as necessary, must be a key part of considering the case for change.
It appears that, under a change to charges based on surface area, premises with high rateable values but small sites will gain, but premises with low rateable values and large sites will lose. We understand that Severn Trent Water has agreed to delay the introduction of a site area based charge in some cases on the ground of merit. We also understand that, where properties have significant areas of grass, garden or car park without a drainage system that connects with the main drain, it has agreed to remove those areas from the measured assessment of those properties.
Anyone faced with large increases as a result of the change introduced by Severn Trent Water should contact the company with a view to establishing that the whole of their site indeed drains to the public sewerage system, and the possibility of phasing in the increase in charges. If they are not satisfied with the company's response, they may wish to take up the matter with Ofwat's central customer service committee. That committee has the duty to represent the views of water customers and to investigate their complaints.
Surface water drainage is not a service provided by sewerage undertakers to every customer. Many customers are not aware that they pay such a charge. Much surface water soaks into the ground where it falls, or flows into soakaways on the premises rather than public sewers. Even though in such cases some companies offer a voluntary rebate, rebates are not universal and the onus is on customers to seek them out.
Sewerage charges on customers' bills seldom identify separately the three elements of charge: foul water, surface water and highway drainage. Customers do not, therefore, have full information on the cost of each of those services. The Government believe customers should be aware of all elements of their bills and would expect water companies to ensure that they are separately identified.
The Director General of Water Services also wants more transparency in the way in which customers are billed. Companies which charge for surface and highway drainage through a fixed charge have been asked to show the amount separately on bills, and all companies have been asked to provide, at the very least, an explanation of their charges.
In principle, we consider that all customers who can demonstrate that they do not receive a specific sewerage service should be entitled to an appropriate abatement of charges. Therefore, when customers are only connected for foul drainage, charges levied by companies should not cover surface drainage. In such circumstances, the director general would like companies to provide abatements in charges. The Government support that approach, as we

627
recognise that surface water drainage for some users can make up a substantial element of the overall charge—a point most tellingly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch.
Under the legislative framework that we inherited from the previous Government, water companies have considerable freedom in deciding how to levy charges on customers, including widespread powers to insist on compulsory metering, as well as the method of calculating surface water drainage charges.
Mr. Lock: When the Minister for the Environment contacts the Director General of Water Services on—quite rightly—the structure of abatements in charges for properties that have soakaways, will he ensure that the forms that companies issue to customers who want to apply for such abatements are simplified? I recently came across a case of Severn Trent Water requiring detailed plans—which the average householder simply could not produce—to prove that the customers qualified for an abatement to which they were clearly entitled.
Ms Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is debatable whether I have ever heard anything more ridiculous than Severn Trent Water's requirements of its customers in that regard, particularly as I would imagine that many of its customers are
628
somewhat elderly and would have some difficulty in reading any form. Being required to discover plans and forward them is absurd.
We are taking action to deliver our manifesto commitment to pursue tough and effective regulation of the water industry in the interests of customers and the environment. The Water Industry Bill that is before Parliament will make the charges of water companies subject to tighter regulation. The Government plan to consult soon on the draft guidance that Ministers will give to the director general on the use of his new powers. I shall ensure that a copy is sent not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch but to my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest and for Northfield as part of the consultation process.
I am sure that the director general will have noted the issues debated today, and will bear them in mind when considering future charges in the Severn Trent Water area and, indeed, the rest of England and Wales. I have little doubt that, if the directors of Severn Trent Water do not notice this debate, they will have it drawn to their attention.
It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  National Health Service
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: When he last met representatives of the National Health Service Confederation in Wales to discuss the funding of the national health service. [85155]
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): I plan soon to meet representatives of the NHS Confederation in Wales. I have had meetings with representatives of all the NHS trusts and health authorities in Wales, to address the very real problems that we inherited from the previous Government.
  Mr. Swayne: Audit Commission figures show that the NHS in Wales is running an in-year deficit of £9 million, as compared with a mere £700,000 deficit in 1996–97. In the coming year, there will be additional cost pressures, in the form of 5 per cent. medical inflation, £30 million in increased drugs bills and £5 million in medical negligence claims. The NHS Confederation has said that, this year, tough decisions will have to be taken. Will the Secretary of State tell us what those tough decisions will be?
  Mr. Michael: The NHS Confederation is right that tough decisions will have to be taken, because of the state of chaos—the absolute disgrace—in which the NHS in Wales was left by the previous Government. In a briefing on the matter dealt with in the hon. Gentleman's question, the NHS Confederation welcomed the extra £193 million in funding for the health service in Wales, and noted the high level of contributions being made by the current Government.
  The hon. Gentleman needs to understand both the state of chaos left by the previous Government, and the very positive action that the current Government are taking to deal with that chaos, which includes providing an extra £1 billion over the next three years for the NHS in Wales. Perhaps he would like to take a more informed interest in the health service in Wales.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: In my right hon. Friend's preparations for the meeting with the NHS Confederation, what consideration has been given to specialist regional health services? I believe that some of those issues have to be re-examined.
  Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right about that. An expert has been appointed to head up the commissioning of specialist services in Wales, to try to ensure that we direct the finances of the NHS in Wales to where they are most needed: to patient care and to dealing with our priorities, in both health care and health gain.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: Does the Secretary of State agree with the NHS in Wales that there is a funding crisis of the utmost severity, and that only one of the consequences of the crisis is a block on the capital
  630
  programme, which is affecting—among many others—the renal dialysis programme in Aberystwyth and the Porthmadog cottage hospital? Is it not time the Government really accepted that the NHS is underfunded, partly because of the Government's insistence on sticking with Tory spending plans for the first two years of their Administration? What will seriously be done about easing the situation and releasing trusts in Wales from the crippling debt burdens that they carry?
  Mr. Michael: The real crisis is one of financial management at both the health authority and trust level. The hon. Gentleman's old area of Dyfed Powys is one that gives me particular concern, and he will know of the action that I am taking to try to deal with that concern. As for finance, I underline the fact that I have promised £01 billion extra for the NHS in Wales. I have announced new spending for this year of £240 million for the NHS in Wales, which will give health authorities £193 million more in their discretionary allocations. That is a 10.3 uplift, which is unprecedented.
  The problem is that resources in the NHS in Wales are not reaching the places that they need to reach. I have made it quite clear that the new Assembly Secretary for Health and I will show leadership and work with everyone who is willing to co-operate in trying to clear up an undoubtedly unacceptable situation. However, expressing unjustified fears on matters such as specific closures will not help the situation. Nevertheless, we have to engage with the situation, which is very serious.
  Mr. John Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the extra funds are not being used to provide orthopaedic beds at Llandough hospital, with which I know he is familiar? Constituents of mine are waiting ever longer for standard orthopaedic operations. Some elderly constituents are going through the cruel experience of being allocated a time for an operation only to have it cancelled at the last minute. The Government provided extra funds to meet emergency admissions to the hospital, but those admissions are now going to orthopaedic beds, so my constituents are waiting. Will he intervene before 1 July to try to do something about the problem?
  Mr. Michael: The situation is unacceptable. An additional consultant is being appointed and additional beds are being made available. My hon. Friend has illustrated another aspect of the chaos in the NHS in Wales. I said in my statement in December and in my comments on NHS finances in 1 April that the situation was unacceptable. People should be able to depend on the services being there when they need them and on the NHS as a whole operating in a co-operative and positive way to provide those services. I accept his point about orthopaedic services; it is under review.
  Dr. Liam Fox: One of the problems facing the health service in Wales and elsewhere is junior doctors' hours. Hon. Members on both sides will welcome the plans being put forward by the Welsh Assembly to reduce junior doctors' hours, but we are all appalled by the Government's plans to seek the freedom to increase the average number of hours that junior doctors are allowed to work.

  631
  Junior doctors' hours were substantially reduced under the Conservative Government. Does the Secretary of State believe that it is sensible or safe for junior doctors in Wales or elsewhere to work for 65 hours a week? Does he agree with the Secretary of State for Health, who wants an increase in junior doctors' hours, or with the Health Secretary of the Welsh Assembly, who plans to reduce those hours?
  Mr. Michael: It does not help if the Conservatives repeat old inaccuracies. There is no difference between Government policy and what the Assembly Health Secretary has said. She corrected some of the old rumours and misapprehensions about what the Government are doing and what is being done by Europe. Her statement was accurate and was consistent with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said. She gave the position as it is. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman studied what has been said and understood it.
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the health service in Wales faces many challenges that Assembly Members need to address in a coolheaded and workmanlike manner? Does he share the sense of dismay that many people in Wales feel at the fact that Plaid Cymru and Conservative Members engaged in the childish tactic of walking out of the National Assembly for Wales yesterday? That tactic was condoned by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and by the Conservatives.
  Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend should not stir the right hon. Member for Caernarfon up, because he might disappear from this Chamber as well, and we would not want that. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the NHS in Wales faces major challenges. When the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was Secretary of State for Wales he withdrew many of the checks and balances from the Welsh Office management of the NHS. We are paying the price for his mistakes. I hope that we shall have co-operation from all parties to re-establish the NHS as a dependable service that provides care when it is needed. As my hon. Friend suggests, that requires a positive and reasonable approach from everybody.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the prospects for the small business sector in Wales. [85156]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): There is a revival of small business confidence in Wales, supported by many Welsh Office initiatives. Following the transfer of functions, the issue will be a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.
  Mr. Bercow: I am afraid that that answer wins a gold medal only for complacency. In the first quarter of 1999 there were 444 business failures—an increase of more than 40 per cent. on the equivalent period last year—and 3,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing industry alone. Business optimism has fallen faster in Wales than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Gentleman not
  632
  recognise the gravity of the situation? Since he took office, how many times has he bothered to meet his counterparts from the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss the crippling over-regulation of small businesses, which has been gathering pace and has been exacerbated throughout his tenure of office?
  Mr. Hain: I have lost count of the number of times I have met my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss concerns from business in Wales and other matters. [HoN. MEMBERS: "What have you achieved?"] Our achievement has been to take seriously the burden of red tape and over-regulation that was heaped upon the business community by the previous Government. As the Member representing Buckingham, the hon. Gentleman does not have a clue about what is going on in Wales. That is shown by the fact that the Welsh Federation of Small Businesses recently issued a statement expressing the small business sector's confidence in the future of the Welsh economy. That is because interest rates are at a 33-year record low, corporation tax for small businesses is at a record low of 10p, and tax for self-employed business men is also at a record low, starting at lop. That is why the small business sector trusts Labour to look after its interests.
  Ms Jackie Lawrence: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has seen the business survey conducted by the Federation of Small Businesses in March 1999 which precisely countered what was said by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). It showed that 33 per cent. of small businesses in Wales are more optimistic than they were last year and that 20 per cent. have increased their work force. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is in part due to the increased consultation process that is now available to small businesses as a result of the Government of Wales Act 1998?
  Mr. Hain: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. What is more, in the past two years during which I have been the Minister responsible for industry, the Welsh Office has had more of an open door to small businesses than ever before. There has been a series of initiatives, including an 18 per cent. increase this year in spending on small business support, which will help 6,000 companies. In addition, we are establishing an entrepreneurship action plan and making Wales an enterprising country in which people want to expand and invest. The small business sector is a vital part of that.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Bearing in mind the fact that over 90 per cent. of employment in Wales is in the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, what recent plans have there been to assist the small business sector to expand its work force, particularly to make it more economically viable and attractive to do so, and to bring in youngsters?
  Mr. Hain: In addition to the measures that I have already described, we have revamped Business Connect Wales, giving it a new business-led management board, to ensure that it is able to supply the support and advice often needed by small business people. The sole trader initiative, by which a self-employed individual is able to take on his or her first worker, has been a great success

  633
  in Wales, particularly north Wales, and is being driven forward. A series of other measures is being put in place to give small businesses what the hon. Gentleman correctly says is their rightful place in the Welsh economy.
  Mr. Huw Edwards: Has my hon. Friend seen the list of the fastest growing firms in Wales which was published by the Western Mail this morning in conjunction with KPMG? May I share my wonderment and pleasure at the fact that six of those happen to be in Monmouthshire? Does my hon. Friend agree that the last thing needed by small firms exporting in Wales is the anti-European posturing of the Conservative party?
  Mr. Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend and I am sure that the wonderful success of those companies in Monmouth is due to the excellent representation from their Member of Parliament. Every small business in Wales has a great deal to fear from the Tory objective, expressed in the past few days, of wanting to leave Europe instead of wanting to lead Europe.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I see that the Minister is wearing his rose-tinted spectacles. Does he accept that in the first three months of this year the number of bankruptcies among Welsh businesses rose by 40 per cent. and is rising at three times that rate among smaller companies? Smaller companies are creating jobs, but the Government are putting them in a straitjacket as a result of costly extra domestic legislation and the fact that they will sign up to any directive from Brussels. Is it not the case that our Welsh businesses want to be in Europe, but do not want to be ruled and governed by Europe?
  Mr. Hain: Welsh businesses want a Government who stand up for them, support them and represent them strongly in Europe instead of standing on the fringes pursuing extremist policies that would result in Britain leaving Europe, as it would do under a Conservative Government. In respect of small business problems, it really takes the biscuit to recall that the hon. Gentleman speaks for a party that presided over record bankruptcies among small businesses in Wales and right across Britain. In each of the last five years of Conservative Government there was an increase in the number of closures and VAT deregistrations among small businesses in Wales. It is a shabby record that we are reversing.

  Beef on the Bone
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: What representations he has received regarding the ban on the sale of beef on the
  bone. [85157]
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): I have received many representations, both supporting and opposing the ban of the sale of beef on the bone. In Wales, following the transfer of functions, it will become a matter for the National Assembly.
  Mr. Robathan: I understand that after 1 July the National Assembly may decide to lift the ban on beef on the bone in Wales. That will lead to the astonishing predicament whereby one will be able to eat beef on the bone in Monmouth, but not if one travels up the A40 to
  634
  Ross-on-Wye. What does the Secretary of State think about that ludicrous situation? What is his position as regards Cabinet collective responsibility? Does he take the Government's absurd line that we are not allowed to eat beef on the bone, or will he support the sensible decision made by the representatives of the Welsh people?
  Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman's question is based on the astonishing assumption that the Welsh Assembly will deal with the issue unreasonably, without examining the evidence. The Assembly Committees responsible for agriculture and health are spending time looking at the evidence in order to reach a sensible decision—the best decision in the interests of the people of Wales. I have every confidence in their ability to look objectively at the facts.
  It is the essence of devolution that some decisions will be taken in Wales for Wales and others will be taken elsewhere. However, the hon. Gentleman is not right to assume that people will act irrationally. That is not the way in which the Welsh Assembly is behaving.
  Dr. Liam Fox: That was hardly an answer. The House deserves an answer to the following question: does the Secretary of State believe that it would be right for an hon. Member who is also a Member of the Welsh Assembly to vote in this House to retain a ban on beef on the bone, but to vote elsewhere to lift it? When the Secretary of State for Scotland said that people who vote in different ways in two different areas will have to resolve that problem themselves, perhaps he had the Secretary of State for Wales in mind.
  Mr. Michael: The devolution settlement is different in Scotland and Wales and we are answering on Welsh issues in our own way. I am happy to answer real questions, not the artificial nonsense questions that the hon. Gentleman dreams up. Of course, some responsibilities will in future fall to the Welsh Assembly. Others fall to the House and to right hon. and hon. Members, including those representing Welsh constituencies. The hon. Gentleman needs to understand the devolution settlement.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: When he last met the United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator to discuss the implementation of Her Majesty's Government's anti-drugs strategy in Wales. [85158]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): My right hon. Friend and I met the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator on 4 February 1999 to discuss plans for tackling substance misuse in Wales. From 1 July, this will be a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.
  Mrs. Winterton: Following the recent publication of the United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator's first annual report and national plan, and bearing it in mind that the Minister for the Cabinet Office has conceded that Britain's drug abuse problem may grow worse before Government initiatives can have any significant impact, what specific plans does the Minister have to combat the rising tide of heroin abuse and drug-related crime in Wales?
  Mr. Jones: I welcome the hon. Lady's concern, and I know that she has expressed anxieties on this subject for

  635
  a number of years. In Wales, we have a strategy called "Forward Together" which seeks to implement key elements of the UK strategy in a way that is applicable to Wales. We have a social inclusion fund amounting to £48 million over the next three years, £4.5 million of which is earmarked to help with drug and alcohol action teams and with support for drug and alcohol problems, which are unfortunately as severe in Wales as they are throughout the United Kingdom.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: What arrangements are proposed for the representation of Wales in the EU Council of Ministers in the draft concordat drawn up by the Foreign Office and the Welsh Office. [85159]
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): Such European matters will be covered in an overarching concordat between the UK Government and the devolved bodies.
  Mr. Eric Forth: A what?
  Mr. Michael: It would be as well for the right hon. Gentleman to wait until I have finished my answer before he gets too excited.
  Assembly Secretaries will be able to form part of the UK delegation to the Council of Ministers, to speak to the agreed UK line where appropriate and to raise Welsh issues. There will be close co-operation between the Assembly Secretaries and Ministers in the UK Government.
  Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that Secretaries of State from his Government who are members of UK delegations in the Council of Ministers will be able to speak up in the interests of Wales and will not have their opinions suppressed, as has happened in the case of the report by John Humphries on the impact of the European Union on Wales? It has been suppressed by the Kinnock Cabinet in Brussels because it highlights the need for the Government in London to provide matching funding to take advantage of objective 1 moneys for Wales.
  Mr. Michael: I will answer gently in case the right hon. Gentleman gets overexcited and feels he has to rush from the Chamber again. Indeed, he is getting overexcited on this point. I have seen the reports, but I have no idea as to the decision-making process. The relationship between Assembly Secretaries and Ministers at Westminster will be one of partnership. The representatives of Wales will participate—as junior Ministers and I have done in the past-in agreeing the United Kingdom line to be fought for at European meetings, and will be part of the delegations. Where appropriate, they will be able to put the case for Wales. This is a question of partnership—which is what devolution is all about.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Does the concordat contain details of the regional assistance that is to come from Europe this year? Is not it strange that the Labour party claimed yesterday that it had got the best deal ever, but that it has refused to announce what that deal is until the election is over?
  Mr. Michael: It depends on what the hon. Gentleman is asking about. His question is muddled. We have
  636
  received the best deal ever for Wales, because the Prime Minister and the Chancellor—working with Welsh Labour MEPs—were successful in winning objective 1 status for large parts of Wales. It is an extremely good settlement. There are other issues in terms of structural funds that have yet to be finalised, and those will be discussed within the Government, and between the Government and our colleagues in Europe.

  Democratic Systems
  Mr. Paul Flynn: What measures he intends to promote to improve democratic systems in Wales. [85160]
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): The establishment of the National Assembly for Wales has brought democracy closer to the people of Wales. Our modernisation agenda involves increasing local accountability; encouraging councils to give local people a greater say in how councils are run; reviewing electoral procedures to encourage greater participation in voting; and seeking to enable councils to experiment with the way in which local authorities are conducted. Our specific proposals for local government are set out in the White Paper, "Local Voices: Modernising Local Government in Wales", which was published in July 1998.
  Mr. Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that commercial lobbying is the mother of corruption and the enemy of open democracy? What will he do to guarantee that the infestation of Cardiff by commercial lobbyists in the past few months will not succeed in gaining them any influence whatever on Welsh Office decisions or on the policies of the Welsh Assembly?
  Mr. Michael: I am not sure about the infestation to which my hon. Friend refers, but I have certainly seen a lot of organisations taking a great deal of interest in Cardiff because they view the arrival of the Assembly as something positive for business as well as for the whole of Wales. The greatest protection is the fact that, built into the design of the National Assembly for Wales, and supported by the House, are the three partnerships: with local government, with the voluntary sector and—relevant to my hon. Friend's question—with business. To have open contact with business at every level is the best way of ensuring that we have good governance and protection against any inappropriate approaches to Assembly members or to the Assembly as a whole.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: In the interests of improving democracy in Wales, and given the scams that have occurred in local government in both north and south Wales, when will the Secretary of State introduce proportional representation for local government elections in Wales?
  Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman has an inventive way of getting a traditional old Liberal song into this debate. I have no such plans at present.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: When does my right hon. Friend intend to light the bonfire

  637
  of the quangos? Was it not our position in devolution debates that we would abolish many of the quangos, which were the plague of the previous Administration?
  Mr. Michael: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has not noticed the steps that have already been taken, including the ending of Tai Cymru and the reduction of the number of NHS trusts. Those steps have made considerable progress in reducing the dependence on quangos that developed under the previous Government. Now that the Assembly is in place, many other decisions are being taken in an open and democratic way, and that will increase as the Committees of the Assembly take up their duties. The position of some of the remaining bodies will be reviewed. For instance, the Cardiff Bay development corporation will wind up in the coming year.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If the Secretary of State improves the democratic system in Wales, will that lead to a reduction of junior Ministers in the House?
  Mr. Michael: That is a matter for the Prime Minister.

  Devolution Timetable
  Sir Sydney Chapman: When he next plans to meet the Committee Secretaries of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the timetable for devolution of powers to the Assembly. [85161]
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): I welcome the hon. Gentleman's belated arrival in the devolution debate. His question should clearly be treated as a sort of maiden speech.
  Under the Transfer of Functions Order debated and agreed in the House on 24 February and in the other place on 3 March and made by Her Majesty in Council on 10 March 1999, the functions of the Secretary of State for Wales transfer to the Assembly on 1 July. By Committee Secretaries, I assume that the hon. Gentleman means the Assembly Secretaries, who are effectively the Ministers who make up the Assembly Cabinet. I meet them very frequently. There is no need to debate the date of the transfer of functions as the House has already decided it.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: The Secretary of State is sadly but characteristically misinformed, as I have already taken part in the debates on devolution. Will he confirm that it is his intention to resign as Secretary of State? Surely it is incompatible to be both First Secretary and Secretary of State.
  Taking education as an example of one of the devolved subjects, if the Assembly takes a decision to spend more money in a particular area of education, will that have to come out of another part of the Welsh Budget, or will the Secretary of State or his successor lobby the Cabinet to change its decision and give more money to Wales?
  Mr. Michael: I said that the hon. Gentleman's first question was rather like a maiden speech. The second is equally ill informed. As I have said for many months, I will stand down as Secretary of State for Wales at the appropriate time, when I have assisted in the transition
  638
  between the responsibilities that I currently hold and the establishment of the right relationships between the Assembly and colleagues in the United Kingdom Cabinet.

  Beef and Dairy Farming
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: When he last met representatives of the National Farmers Union to discuss beef and dairy farming. [85162]
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): The National Assembly Secretary for Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Christine Gwyther, and I met representatives of the National Farmers Union on Monday 24 May, when we discussed a range of issues. They stayed in the room and probed us vigorously on a series of issues affecting farmers in Wales—which, of course, will be matters for the National Assembly in future.
  Mr. Fabricant: Did those representatives probe the right hon. Gentleman about the fact that farm prices for milk have fallen by 25 per cent., and farm incomes in Wales by 41 per cent., since the Government came to power? Did they say how irritated they were with the Prime Minister's continual bragging at Prime Minister's Question Time about having singlehandedly lifted the beef ban, when not one kilogram of beef has been exported from Wales?
  Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman conveniently reminds us that the Government whom he supported, who were in office until two years ago, signally failed to deal with the beef ban and to protect the interests of farmers in Wales, as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom. Yes, indeed: the NFU representatives took the opportunity provided by the meeting to debate the issues that he raises, because farmers in Wales have had an extremely difficult time. I suppose that we should take the hon. Gentleman's question as a form of apology for his Government.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    [85185] Dr. Tony Wright: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Dr. Wright: I congratulate the Prime Minister—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh.") Wait for it. I congratulate the Prime Minister on having referred the issue of party funding to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Is he aware that there is still a party that gets about one third of its income from its treasurer, who is a tax exile in Florida and who moonlights as the Belize ambassador at the

    639
    United Nations? When a party has to go, baseball cap in hand, to a billionaire in Belize for its funding, should Lord Neill not be asked to re-examine the issue?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely for those reasons that we are committed to introducing legislation. It was this Government who ensured that we could scrutinise party funding properly—[Interruption.] If the Leader of the Opposition denies the facts that my hon. Friend mentioned, perhaps he will say so now, when he asks his question.
    Mr. William Hague: As we know, the only group who can buy votes and influence in a party are the trade unions in the Labour party. The comments of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) are total rubbish. Does the Prime Minister think that the story of the euro so far—[Interruption.] We know that Labour Members do not like talking about the euro.
    Does the Prime Minister think that the story of the euro so far— story of fudged borrowing rules, exchange rate instability and economic divergence, all wrapped up with chaotic political handling—has weakened or strengthened the case for joining the single currency?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that our position is the correct position—to support a successful single currency, to say that in practice the economic conditions must be met, and to make preparations so that this country has the option to join. The most foolish thing for this country to do would be to adopt the position that the right hon. Gentleman set out this morning for the Conservative party, and rule out the single currency for ever. That would not be in the interests of British jobs, British industry or British investment.
    Mr. Hague: The question was whether those events had weakened or strengthened the case for joining the euro. Almost everyone in the country except the Prime Minister and the Chancellor thinks that that case has been weakened. The Italian Treasury Minister says:
    "We have all agreed that the less we talk about the euro, the better it is".

    He must have been in charge of the Labour party's election campaign. Does the Prime Minister seriously believe that the decision to allow the Italian Government to break its deficit rules—a decision to which the Chancellor was a party—has not weakened the case for joining the euro?
    The Prime Minister: The case is as we set it out in February. If the right hon. Gentleman's position now is that we rule out joining the euro for ever, that is wrong. We have the correct position, which is that the test for joining is our national economic interest. That is because more than 50 per cent. of our trade is with Europe and more than 3 million jobs are dependent on Europe. The anti—Europeanism of the Conservative party is a betrayal of the British national interest.
    Mr. Hague: My position is to keep the pound at the next election. The Prime Minister's position is to abolish the pound after the next election. He seems to think that recent events make no difference. Even the governor of the European central bank—one of the two people
    640
    qualified to talk about it—has said that recent events have not done the euro any good. Has the Prime Minister seen the accumulating evidence, contained in the recent International Monetary Fund report, that the UK economy is diverging from the continental economies, not converging with them? Does he agree that that weakens the case for joining the euro?
    The Prime Minister: It is correct that, under this Government, Britain has the lowest interest rates for more than 30 years, and that the public finances have been sorted out. However, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The case with regard to the euro remains as we set it out in February.
    However, the right hon. Gentleman has now said that he rules out joining the euro at the next election, but apparently not at the election after that—a fatuous position to be in. There are two serious positions on this matter. One is ours, which is dependent on the national economic interest, and the other is to rule it out as a matter of principle. The right hon. Gentleman's position is to rule out joining for the next Parliament, but to rule it in for the Parliament after that. That is an absurd position, and has to do with the division in the Conservative party, not the national interest. If he wants to, in these European elections the right hon. Gentleman can make the case for ruling out the euro. I shall carry on addressing the British national interest, because that is in the interests of this country.
    Mr. Hague: We are asking the Prime Minister to address the issues. People are sick and tired of him claiming to love the pound at election time and then committing us to abolishing it afterwards. Does he acknowledge that, increasingly, many politicians in other countries have spoken of the euro as the foundation of closer political union? Chancellor Schroder, with whom he was campaigning yesterday, called it a "stepping stone" to a political union. Is the Prime Minister so dogmatically committed to abolishing the pound that he cannot see that that major constitutional risk weakens the case for joining the euro?
    The Prime Minister: Our position is not dogmatic; it is clear, and based on whether the euro is good for British jobs, investment and industry. It is a pragmatic position. What I was pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman is the absurdity of his position, which is that he rules out joining as a matter of principle at the next election, but that he rules it in as a matter of principle at the election after that.
    The right hon. Gentleman has decided to define the modern Conservative party by its anti—Europeanism. For example, he is now saying—he said it again today—that he would renegotiate the terms of British entry into the European Union. [Interruption.] We see that Conservative Members behind him are nodding their heads. It would require all 14 other member states to agree that. When the right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, will he name one other Government who support that position?
    Mr. Hague: Is not it the truth that, irrespective of all the evidence, the Prime Minister wants to con the country into thinking that joining the euro is inevitable? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is enough.
    Mr. Hague: That is why he has committed us to join it in principle. Is not it the actual truth that this country

    641
    has a choice, and that it can make a success of the pound if it wishes to do so, and be in Europe without being run by Europe? People who want to impress that on the Prime Minister should vote for the Conservative party tomorrow.
    The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that there will be a referendum of the British people, and the idea that we can bounce them one way or the other is absurd. The position that we have set out is surely sensible. The test is the national economic interest.
    I have pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the absurdity of his position, which rules out entry for the next election but not for the one after that. We have seen him sharing an election platform with Michael Portillo who, I am sure, is right behind him—knife in hand. Mr. Portillo's position is to rule out entry in principle and for good. For the European election campaign, the right hon. Gentleman has effectively adopted Michael Portillo's position on the pound. He wants to renegotiate British entry into the European Union and to cancel the changeover plan so that we cannot enter the euro even if we want to. During the past few days, he has also said that he wants to withdraw from the defence initiative that we have begun with our French colleagues. That is a recipe for leaving the United Kingdom with no strength, power or influence in Europe. No matter what short-term tactical gain he believes he will achieve, that is not in the strategic, long-term interests of Britain. Nor, I can honestly say, is it in the interests of the Conservative party.
    Mr. David Lock: Can my right hon. Friend tell me what the attitude of the British Government would be if another country told the European Union that it would like to renegotiate the treaty of Rome, tear up the rules of the single market and turn the clock back 20 years? Does he agree that the British Government, like every other Government, would say that that was a preposterous stance that amounted to leaving the EU? Is the Opposition's policy of renegotiation really a fig leaf to cover up their intention to leave Europe entirely?
    The Prime Minister: That is the logic of their position. The Leader of the Opposition cannot name a single Government who support his position, yet the Conservative party says that it would be right for Britain to remain in the European Union only if we were allowed to renegotiate our terms of entry. I can see Conservative Members nodding at that. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can name one Government who support his position, the logic of that position is that the Conservatives will have to leave the EU. Given that more than 50 per cent. of our trade is with Europe, that would be a mistake for Britain.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Judging by the exchanges that we have heard—[Interruption.] I shall take that as a welcome.
    Judging by the exchanges that we have heard, it is clear that the vision of the leader of the Conservative party for Britain in Europe is nothing more than an exit sign in lights. Is not the choice before the British electorate tomorrow simple? We can have a Britain on the edge of Europe and preparing to get out of it, or a Britain prepared to play a constructive role in Europe, but determined to reform it. I suspect that the Prime Minister would like to be placed in the second category, so why is he opposed
    642
    to more openness in the Council of Ministers and why were his Members of the European Parliament opposed to holding individual Commissioners to account for their actions? Why does his party oppose allowing the MEPs more powers to hold the Commissioners to account?
    The Prime Minister: On his points of detail, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about the Labour MEPs. They were among those in the European Parliament who managed to hold the Commission to account. On his first point, the right hon. Gentleman is right. We want to be in Europe and we want to reform it. That is one reason why we launched the reform document yesterday in Britain with Chancellor Schröder. It is remarkable that the Conservatives criticised us even for sharing a platform even with the leader of Germany. It is an extraordinary reflection on how extreme they are that they do not believe we should even share a platform with people who are our allies in the European Union.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister says that he wants reform in Europe. May I give one example of where the record parts company with the rhetoric? Not many weeks ago, a proposition was put down in Brussels by, as it happens, the Liberal Democrats to ensure that MEPs were paid expenses only against receipts. Labour MEPs blocked that proposition. Why?
    The Prime Minister: That is completely wrong. We have supported the Members' statute, and have said its introduction should be quickened. We also proposed the anti-fraud office that the EU is setting up. The right hon. Gentleman's attempt to say that Labour MEPs have a bad record on reform is simply untrue. The reason why we have now got a chance of getting those things done is that if people vote for Labour MEPs, they are at least voting for people with some influence in the Parliament.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: In this national carers week, will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking all those who care for people with Down's syndrome? This week they are running their health alert campaign, which has shown that there is some discrimination in parts of the national health service against people with Down's syndrome. Will he join me and others to combat all forms of discrimination against people with learning difficulties?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I support that and, of course, it was as a result of this Government and the policy that we put forward some time ago that an extra £140 million has been committed for carers. I support fully what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: Does the Prime Minister share the view of his Health Secretary that NHS staff are to blame for the recent rise in waiting lists because they took holidays at Easter?
    The Prime Minister: He did not say that at all. What he did say, which is true, is that waiting lists are now 65,000 down from what we inherited at the last election, and I can tell the House today that waiting time figures are down as well.
    Mr. Tony McNulty: Can my right hon. Friend clarify the Government's position on the state

    643
    funding of parties? Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), it cannot be right for any party in this House to be so dependent on a tax exile billionaire for its funds. While he is at it, can he get to the end of an important issue: has the Conservative party paid back the £18,000 blood money from Milosevic?
    Madam Speaker: Order. That was totally out of order and a waste of time.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Will the Prime Minister support the Bill overwhelmingly backed in this House yesterday that would ban the import of meat from countries with low animal welfare standards?
    The Prime Minister: As I think we said when the Bill passed yesterday-at least I hope we did-we will consider it carefully. We cannot give a guarantee because of the implications there may be for trade, but we will certainly look sympathetically at it. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to ask me about Europe, but then he agrees with me more than he agrees with those on his Front Bench on Europe.
    Ms Hazel Blears: With the extension of NHS Direct and the introduction of walk-in health clinics, will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government intend to provide high-quality health services where and when people want them, in contrast to the Conservative party, which still believes that the only way to do that is for a privileged few to pay to go private?
    The Prime Minister: As a result of the additional funding that we are putting in, there will be some 7,000 extra doctors and 15,000 extra nurses in the health service. About 1,000 GP practices are to be modernised and every accident and emergency department that needs it will be updated and renovated. Also, as a result of the walk-in centres and NHS Direct, people will have the best modern health service that we can have. It will take some time, but the health service will return to its principles of care at the point of need for all, irrespective of ability to pay. That stands in contrast to the comments of the Conservative party's health spokesman and spokeswoman who want to make sure that people are forced to go private rather than use the health service.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I remind the Prime Minister that when the Conservatives introduced the bus lanes on the M4 Heathrow spur, they were additional lanes that did not increase congestion? How are we to judge the success or failure of the bus lanes that his Government have introduced on the M4, which have caused enormous congestion and pollution? Are they just another Labour anti-car stunt to pander to the anti-car lobby?
    The Prime Minister: No, they are not. They arise from a suggestion of the Highways Agency, and are an experiment that it is sensible to carry out. We shall consider the results of the experiment carefully, both in terms of congestion and of safety.
    Mrs. Sylvia Heal: During national carers week, it is appropriate that
    644
    we acknowledge the contribution made by millions of carers of all ages in providing personal care and support to many people with disabilities. My right hon. Friend will no doubt recall that, exactly a year ago today, he announced that the Government would introduce a national strategy for carers. The strategy was launched in February this year. It contained a pledge that social services would be allowed to provide services directly to carers as soon as possible. Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing such legislation as a priority?
    The Prime Minister: I spoke earlier of the extra grant of £140 million over three years, which will enable local authorities to provide a wide range of services to give carers a break. As my hon. Friend will know, we intend to amend legislation to give local authorities powers to provide services directly to carers. In the context of that change, we will consider the case for extending direct payments to carers for the services.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: Yesterday, the Prime Minister gave us the quite welcome news that the European Council had actually advocated lower business and labour costs. However, can he explain to the House why there is no mention-indeed no hint-of that policy in the manifesto for the European socialist party that he has adopted as Labour's manifesto for tomorrow's elections?
    The Prime Minister: The policy set out clearly yesterday is in the document that I launched with Chancellor Schröder. In respect of what has happened in this country, we have cut corporation tax to its lowest level ever. I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would welcome the fact that we now have the support of a leading country in EuropeGermany—in ensuring that we can lower business and labour costs. We cannot commit every country in Europe to that policy, but we believe that it is the right policy and we are building the necessary alliances in Europe to achieve it. That stands in stark contrast with his party's position—to build no alliances with anyone.
    Dr. Desmond Turner: The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on his efforts on the world stage in pursuit of world peace. Will he use his increasing world stature in the interest of reducing world poverty and, in particular, will he use it to help to persuade our more reluctant partners among the G8 countries, at the forthcoming Cologne summit, at least to support the proposals made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that we can make a substantive start on reducing the burden of international debt on the poorest countries in the world? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: I assume that that cheer is one of congratulation, and I accept the congratulations of my hon. Friend. I thank him very much indeed. His question is important because this country is at the forefront of initiatives to reduce third-world debt. That is important. We have announced a series of measures that would allow a cut of at least $50 billion in the debt of the world's poorest countries by the end of the year 2000. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced a $100 million further contribution to the trust fund set up to meet the costs falling to the World Bank

    645
    and other regional development banks. However much the Conservative party may decry those types of initiative to reduce third-world debt, large numbers of people in this country support measures to reduce third-world debt and understand—even if today's Conservative party does not—that our generosity does not stop at our shores.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Tomorrow, many people will vote in the European elections. Will the Prime Minister join me in saying that this should be the first and the last time that not a single voter is able to vote for a single candidate in an election? It is a disgrace that no elector can affect what happens to a mainstream party candidate.
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree. We had this debate during the passage through the House of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999. The policy is the right one because the new system is far simpler for voters and far better—it is a more democratic system. It is also a system under which we are bound to do less well.
    I disagree with the hon. Gentleman: not only is it the right system, but it is the system used by most other countries in the European Union.
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I tell my right hon. Friend of the anxiety felt at Shotton steelworks in my constituency and at British Steel plc about the potential impact of the energy tax which, by 2001, might be some £230 million for the industry? Will he monitor the impact of the tax on industries in Britain? My steelworkers were glad that, yesterday, they were able to meet my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and make their case—she said that she would consider the impact of the tax.
    The Prime Minister: Any money raised by the climate change levy is given back to industry through cuts in national insurance costs. However, we understand that there are many energy-intensive industries that may have particular problems. For that reason, we have said that we will meet them and consult with them on the impact of the proposals, and we shall certainly do so.
    Mr. Stephen Day: In view of the fact that another terrorist murder took place in Northern Ireland last week, and given that there has been no decommissioning of terrorist weapons, will the Prime Minister now call a halt to the release of terrorist prisoners? If his answer is no, will he explain to the House why he apparently treats terrorist murderers so leniently, but is so hard on British ex-soldiers?
    The Prime Minister: First, anyone who has committed a crime after the time of the signing of the Good Friday agreement is not eligible for early release, so that response would not be appropriate. Those who are responsible for that appalling attack will not be eligible for early release.
    Secondly, the hon. Gentleman and many other Conservative Members have, in effect, been saying for a significant period of time that we should bring the Good Friday agreement to an end—[Interruption.] They can shout and bawl as much as they like, but that is effectively
    646
    what they have been asking for. I believe that that would be a mistake; it would be the wrong thing to do. We have now set a timetable to try to get over this last remaining difficulty.
    I hope that the Conservative party will put the interests of people everywhere in the United Kingdom ahead of whatever views it might express that would undermine the agreement. I hope that it will support the Labour Government in the same way as we used to support the Conservative Government in getting the peace agreement through.

    Radioactive Waste
    Mr. David Chaytor: What plans he has to develop a policy on the long-term storage of radioactive waste.
    The Prime Minister: Existing radioactive waste is stored at licensed sites under strict regulatory controls and in accordance with the highest international standards. We want to ensure that the long-term management of waste continues to ensure public safety and the protection of the environment. We shall publish a consultation paper on that around the end of the year.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the latest research from Sussex university comparing the costs of reprocessing and of dry storage as methods of dealing with spent fuel, will he include the future of nuclear reprocessing in the terms of reference of the Green Paper?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has expressed that point of view and his concerns on several occasions. I assure him that the full range of safety, environmental and economic issues associated with reprocessing were considered in exhaustive detail during the process of consultation before THORP was commissioned. But if we were to question the continued operation of THORP, that would not be right. THORP is an operation with orders valued at some £12 billion, it provides 6,000 skilled jobs and it indirectly supports many more. We have to deal with the issue of radioactive waste, but I do not support the case of those who would like us to abandon THORP.

    Engagements
    Mr. Simon Burns: Why, based on the Government's figures, between 1 May 1997 and 31 March 1999 in the Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS trust area, has the number of people waiting 13 weeks or more for out-patient treatment risen from 555 to 2,422; the number of people waiting 12 months or more for hospital treatment risen from 104 to 1,093; and the total hospital waiting list figure increased by 1,500 people?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know the details of the individual hospital. I am happy to accept the figures the hon. Gentleman gives, but I will check them if I may.
    There is no doubt about the figures for the whole country: the waiting lists have fallen after years and years of rising. Waiting times in the whole country have fallen,

    647
    and more out-patients are now being treated than two years ago. The health authority deficits that we inherited were £500 million for the whole country. They came down to £100 million last year and, I can tell the House, now stand at £12 million. Yes, it will take us time to turn around a health service that under the Government the
    648
    hon. Gentleman supported was undermined and ruined every day. It will take us time, but with the extra investment that we are putting in—more nurses, more doctors and more capital spending—everywhere, including mid-Essex, will feel the benefit at the next general election.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following Welsh questions today, I wish to ask for your guidance before the next Scottish questions. As you know, in Scotland, there is now a formal coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party. Is it appropriate for the Liberals to be treated in this House as members of the Government in terms of Scottish questions or as members of the Opposition? In particular, what is the position of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) who, although he sits on the Opposition Benches, is a Minister of the Crown?
Madam Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I have already given the position some thought. Members of the Liberal Democrat party are not represented in Her Majesty's Government in this House, so as far as I am concerned, it remains an Opposition party. It is as clear as that.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister might reasonably have anticipated that at least one question in the past half hour would have referred to what has happened in the past 24 hours in Macedonia. Through no fault of the Prime Minister's, he was not asked such a question. In those circumstances, has there been any request from the Defence Secretary or the Prime Minister to make a report to the House of Commons? Surely we deserve to know what is happening, whatever one's view of the continuous bombing.
Madam Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I have had no indication that the Government are seeking to make a statement at this time.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that in January last year, the Prime Minister set up a second judicial inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday, involving members of the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment. I am distressed that the Prime Minister has slunk away from Question Time immediately. I wonder whether you have heard from him, in view of the fact that he has responsibility for security matters, that he intends to come to the House to explain why he refuses to accord the right of anonymity to those former members of the regiment who have been called to give evidence and whose lives are now at risk. This very afternoon, in advance of a hearing in the High Court tomorrow, the solicitors acting on behalf of the inquiry released to the relatives of those who died and were wounded in that incident the statements given by those soldiers containing their names, ranks and numbers.
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. As I explained earlier, I have not been informed by any Minister—including the Prime Minister—that he or she is seeking to make a statement today about any issue.

Concessionary Television Licences for Pensioners
3.35 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the concessionary television licence entitlement to all pensioners living in households consisting only of pensioners; and for connected purposes.
It is more than 12 years since my private Member's Bill that sought to extend television licence concessions to all pensioner-only households was defeated by 21 votes. That occurred on 16 January 1987. I was pleased that the majority of Labour Members of Parliament came to the House on a Friday to support that measure, which was defeated as a result of the then Tory Government's imposing a three-line Whip on a private Member's Bill. Several Cabinet Ministers were shown on television being chauffeured to the House of Commons to vote down my measure.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: Disgraceful.
Mr. Winnick: I could not agree more. The issue has certainly not gone away since then. I understand that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport receives more correspondence on this subject than on any other topic. I see the Minister nodding his head.
Several weeks ago, it was reported that the committee examining the future of BBC funding and the concessionary scheme had decided to recommend that all existing television licence concessions should go. Within hours of those press reports, the Government—I believe at the highest level—made it clear that any such recommendation would be rejected; and rightly so. I hope that Mr. Gavyn Davies and his committee—who are to report next month—will make a very different recommendation for pensioners.
I want to see the existing concession extended to all pension-only households. I believe that that is fair, and it is something for which I and many of my hon. Friends have campaigned for many years—even before I introduced my private Member's Bill in 1987. I accept that such a concession could probably be introduced only in stages because of the cost involved. While I would like to see the concession extended to all pensioner-only households—that is the purpose of my 10-minute rule Bill—I would welcome any compromise and progress towards its introduction on a wider scale. For example, the television licence fee could be halved for pensioners, it could be a third of its present cost or the concession could be granted to pensioners over 70 years of age. Those are some of the ways of achieving our objective.
Of course, we need good pensions. I sometimes hear the argument—not from my colleagues, but from various organisations—that a good basic pension, rather than concessions, is required. Which Labour Member is not in favour of a good basic pension? We have always called for that. However, that aim should not be used as an argument against concessions.
All pensioners in my own area, in London and in many other parts of the country receive a bus pass. Is that not right? Does it not assist pensioners a great deal? They certainly appreciate it. They would certainly have difficulty meeting the costs involved if they could not

651
travel for free on the buses at most times of the day. All Labour Members are again very pleased about the assistance that the Government have provided to pensioners with winter fuel bills. I remember arguing constantly from the Opposition Benches in previous Parliaments that such a payment should be introduced, and this Government provided that assistance as soon as they came to office. From next year, all pensioners will receive £100 towards their winter fuel bills. That demonstrates our concern for people of pensionable age.
It has also been argued that pensioner incomes have increased over the years. I accept that since I introduced my private Member's Bill 12 years ago, there has been a modest improvement, which is welcome. That is largely due to various occupational schemes taking effect as people have retired in the past few years. There should, however, be no misunderstanding: the latest figures demonstrate that 63 per cent. of pensioners are in the bottom half of income distribution. The figures for 1997-98 reveal that 42 per cent. of single pensioners were in the lowest fifth of household incomes. Clearly, many of our fellow citizens of pensionable age are experiencing poverty or near poverty.
I am often asked why I put so much emphasis on television. As they grow older, many pensioners find that their television set is extremely important, particularly in the winter months and if they live on their own. Television is an important link with the outside world, not simply a form of entertainment. Without television, there would undoubtedly be far more isolation and loneliness for the people to whom I have referred.
I could quote endlessly the letters that I have received from people around the country. Those who know of my concern write to me about my proposal to introduce a Bill on this matter. I shall refer to only one letter. A pensioner in Worcester wrote to me last month saying that she is a widow who receives, in all, £76.25 a week, and that for people such as herself, the television is the main source of news and entertainment and, in her case, the greatest companion. She concluded her letter by saying that a £5 fee would be a great help to her. How many more pensioners throughout the country take the same view?
There are anomalies in the current system. I receive letters from people who say that their pensioner next-door neighbour pays £5 while they must pay the full amount. We know the explanation for that. The Tory Government made it far more difficult for local authorities to make applications for concessionary television licences. There was a successful court case and the Conservative
652
Government were frightened that the concessionary door was being opened too wide, so they tightened the restrictions in May 1988. Those who lived in certain accommodation prior to May 1988 therefore receive the concession, and rightly so, but those who moved in afterwards pay the full amount. One can imagine the resentment that they feel. That does not, I suppose, make for good relations between neighbours. That is one of the most blatant anomalies.
Other countries have more generous television licence schemes for pensioners. In the Irish Republic, licences are free for those who are entitled to the state pension. France and one or two other countries have schemes that are more generous than ours.
What about the cost? Of course, I accept that a substantial cost would be involved. That could be borne by the Exchequer or by an increase in the licence fee. After all, everyone hopes to reach pensionable age. If the measure were introduced in stages, the cost would be lower. If, in the first instance, the concession were given only to the over-70s or if the licence fee were reduced, as I have suggested, by a half or a third, there would be less cost to the BBC or the Exchequer. If the £5 concessionary fee was increased, but only—I stress the word "only"—if the scheme that I am advocating was introduced, that would also reduce the overall cost.
I do not for one moment accept that we cannot afford to introduce a more generous scheme. We are a rich, advanced country, and pensioners are absolutely right to ask for this reform. They have been campaigning for it far longer than I have been. We should make a move in the right direction, so I decided to introduce this ten-minute Bill. I hope that the Government will give it serious consideration and that, over time, we shall make the progress on this issue that so many of us want.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Peter Bradley, Mr. Hilton Dawson, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. Martin Salter, Mr. Ken Purchase, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Valerie Davey, Mrs. Ann Cryer and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Concessionary Television Licences for Pensioners
  CONCESSIONARY TELEVISION LICENCES FOR PENSIONERS
  Mr. David Winnick accordingly presented a Bill to extend the concessionary television licence entitlement to all pensioners living in households consisting only of pensioners; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 115].

House of Lords Reform
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hanson.]
3.46 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Although it is, of course, right and proper that we debate the White Paper, I doubt whether hon. Members will find much new in what I propose to say. The legislation that the White Paper accompanies is very much stage 1 of an enduring process. Although the White Paper provides the context for the legislation that it describes, it also sets the framework for a royal commission and for further legislation. That first stage of reform is still being debated in the House of Lords—the House of Lords Bill will return to this House—while the second stage is now with the royal commission.
The legislation reforms the House of Lords by abolishing the right to sit and vote there on the basis of heredity alone, without regard for the personal qualities or qualifications of the inheritor. As the White Paper identifies, the effect of that decision—should it be carried through into law—will be to create a transitional House of about half the present size, in which every Member will sit as a result of their own achievement and reputation.
That is certainly preferable to the present position, but it still in our view has serious flaws. Although it diminishes the permanent in-built Conservative majority, there would still be, for example, a wholly disproportionate representation of the main parties—even in a transitional House that is created solely by the removal of hereditary peers. That is because of the exploitation of the Prime Minister's sole power of patronage during the 1980s and 1990s, which led to the creation of infinitely more Conservative life peers than those of any other party, and exacerbated the in-built Conservative majority among hereditary peers.
That position is certainly unacceptable to my party, although I have noted that, in the many debates on this matter in the House of Lords, the proposal to remove that in-built majority has been described pejoratively as acting "to our own"—the Labour party' s—"advantage". On the contrary, we strongly believe that it is to the country's advantage that no political party has an overall majority in the House of Lords. That is the principle that we are enshrining in the arrangements for the transitional House, seeking only parity with the Conservative party.
Such a principle has, on occasion, been espoused by the Conservative party itself, but it has been most notable that, whether in this House or in the House of Lords, today's Conservatives have been most reluctant to accept that national interest should override the political interests of the Conservative party.
Rather than following the precedent created by his Conservative predecessors, the present Prime Minister is determined to diminish the unfettered power of patronage that he now enjoys—although nobody would think so to listen to some of the rubbish that has been uttered from the Opposition Benches during many of our debates. The Prime Minister is, for the first time ever, to forgo his power to object to the names of those nominated by other party leaders.
654
We are to set up an appointments commission—using machinery devised by the previous Government, to ensure a proper process of appointment—with a suitable independent element, as well as representation from the political parties. That appointments commission will take over the job of scrutinising proposals for adding Members to the House of Lords. The whole process will, therefore, be much more transparent and independent than ever in the past, and will represent the first ever diminution of the sole power of patronage enjoyed by a Prime Minister in Britain's history.
Against the background of the creation of the transitional House, the Government have also proposed the setting up of the royal commission—itself chaired not by a Labour, but by a Conservative peer, and with a balanced and independent-minded membership. We have given the royal commission a tight timetable, and we acknowledge that. However, those who criticise us for the timetable being too tight are, in many cases, the very same people who said that unless the royal commission worked to a tight timetable, it would prove that the Government had no intention of going beyond stage 1 and the transitional House. They really cannot have the argument both ways. The tight timetable for the royal commission is itself evidence of the Government's good faith in seeking proper and fundamental reform of the House of Lords. It is also evidence of our practicality in trying to ensure that, on this occasion, after more than a century of debate, it is actually achieved.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that Conservative Members were calling for a royal commission for more than a year before it was established?
Mrs. Beckett: I acknowledge that Conservative Members have called for a royal commission, although I also acknowledge that they nevertheless resist any attempt at change. As I shall say later in my speech, one of the Government's objectives is to ensure that the royal commission will be able to take account of other constitutional change. The commission would not have been able to do that if it had been established earlier.
The Government have established some broad principles against which the royal commission should begin its work. It is asked to consider, first, the role of a second Chamber; then, the powers required to fulfil that role; and, finally, the composition of the body that should be established to exercise those powers and perform that role. That seems to us to be the only sensible and logical way in which to hold a proper debate on the new second Chamber. We have never had such a debate in Britain before.
All previous discussions have tended to begin with the matter of composition, partly because the composition of the current House is so self-evidently unjustifiable. They have also been dominated by composition because—perhaps unsurprisingly—the principle preoccupation of many Members of the current House of Lords has been their own role in a new second Chamber, and whether and to what degree they might continue to exercise legislative power. Therefore, the stranglehold that they have enjoyed over any previous attempt at reform has ensured that the debate has almost always begun with composition, and been driven very heavily by what they were prepared to

655
accept in a successor body. That has created an artificial context for previous debates, so that what a second Chamber ought to be has never been properly considered.
The House of Lords Bill cuts that Gordian knot. It allows us to begin as we should, by considering what Britain needs and not what hereditary peers are prepared to accept. However, just as the House of Lords Bill enables us to separate stage 2, and what should come in the future, from stage 1 and the first steps of the reform process, it is extremely important to encourage the new debate without allowing it to be bogged down in comparisons, valid or otherwise, with the current House of Lords.
Dr. Liam Fox: Perhaps for the sake of clarity, will the right hon. Lady tell us whether, in general, she believes that a reformed upper House should have more, the same or fewer powers than the current one?
Mrs. Beckett: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman that later in my speech. If he will forgive me, I shall not do so now, as I want to make a specific point that should underpin the debate.
I very much hope that we—by which I mean not only those participating in the debate, but everyone who engages with the issue—shall free ourselves from looking at the House of Lords as it is and saying what we should make different, whether in its powers or its composition, and instead begin from first principles, by considering not what people have been criticising or even campaigning for, but what type of new second Chamber Britain actually needs.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am extremely encouraged to hear the Leader of the House speak in those principled terms about the role of the House of Lords. Does she think that, conformable with those terms, the commission should not listen to siren voices suggesting that a reformed upper House should depend on actions taken in this House to reform itself, but that—although there are connections between the two Houses' roles and functions—the commission's job is one that can properly be carried very far by simply examining the functions of the second Chamber?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is right. The commission would find it difficult to get engaged in that area of argument and doing so would make it very difficult for it to report within the time required.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: While it is right that the commission should address the functions of the second Chamber, in determining what those functions are, should it not consider the extent to which this House properly performs its democratic role of holding the Executive to account?
Mrs. Beckett: No. That is not the business of the commission. It was set up to consider the role of the second Chamber. If there is concern about the operation of this House, it is for this House, not a royal commission to tell us what to do.
Mr. Oliver Letwin rose—
Mrs. Beckett: I want to get on, but I shall give way briefly.
Mr. Letwin: I do not want to detain or distract the right hon. Lady, but does she not recognise that there is an
656
intrinsic relationship between the two issues? The role of the second Chamber must depend to an extent on the effectiveness of the lower Chamber.
Mrs. Beckett: I do not accept that point and I shall explain why. There is clearly a relationship between this Chamber and the second Chamber. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the effectiveness of this Chamber, I suspect that, like his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), he is seeking to pursue the ridiculous Conservative argument that the present Government cannot be scrutinised in the way that previous Governments were, and that that shows some in-built failing in the House. The effectiveness with which we conduct our business is a matter for Members of Parliament, not for the royal commission.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I am sorry to ask my right hon. Friend so many questions at this stage in her speech. Does she agree that the role of a second Chamber is not to remedy the deficiencies of this Chamber? There have been many changes over the past 20 years and more. Should we not make sure that the system is brought into line with what is required rather than using the other Chamber to cope with our deficiencies?
Mrs. Beckett: I share my right hon. Friend's view that if there are deficiencies in this House, it is for this House to address and deal with them. It is strange to argue that we have to set up another House to do so. There is a different role for a second Chamber.
That intervention ties in neatly with the point that I was about to make—and may yet make. The starting point in the debate for some people is to ask whether we need a second Chamber. They are the so-called unicameralists, who can be found on both sides of the House, although not in substantial numbers, I think. No doubt that will emerge over time. Those of us who accept that there is a need and a role for a second Chamber must explain why.
It has always been argued that the value of a second Chamber is to provide not merely an alternative group to scrutinise and comment on Government activity, particularly the legislative programme, but a group with different experiences and perspectives. Those who have argued for some of the virtues of the existing House of Lords have almost always said that they lie in some of the differences between that Chamber and this one. In particular, they have argued strongly for keeping some people from outside the mainstream world of politics that leads to the House of Commons and for there to be at least some people in that House who do not take a party Whip. As the Government have pointed out in the terms of reference of the royal commission, the creation of the new devolved bodies, and the growing role and increasing powers of the European Parliament have created a different context in which the role of a new second Chamber should be considered.
We do not seek to dictate answers in the White Paper. We seek to address the issues that should inform the shaping of those answers and we try to set out some of the principles that any proposals should meet. The first is that this House must continue to be the pre-eminent Chamber of Parliament. That is a principle which I hope that every Member of this House would wholeheartedly endorse. I am unashamedly a House of Commons woman

657
through and through, and it has been most noticeable that one of the most potent weapons of those who have opposed change down the years has been any threat, real or potential, to the pre-eminence of the House of Commons. That suggests that Members of this House through the decades have shared the Government's view on this important point.
We have not nor would we ever propose to change the power of the second Chamber to veto any extension of the life of a Parliament. The legitimacy of government comes from the endorsement of the people and, of course, it must be renewed at regular intervals.
My brief summary of the Government's approach to the issues of role, powers and composition is that there is a role for a second body and a second process of scrutiny, and that the needs of that process should direct the powers that it requires. It is only then that one comes to consider what should be the nature of the body to exercise those powers, how such a body might be composed and how its members might be chosen.
I do not propose to say much about the powers that would be needed by a second Chamber retaining the important roles of revision and scrutiny, but, picking up the question asked by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), one important point is that there is enormous confusion, particularly outside the House, in much of what has already been said about the powers that a new second Chamber should have.
Almost every time I hear somebody comment on powers, I find myself wondering whether they are referring to the powers that the House of Lords has now or to the powers that it currently exercises. It is somewhat strange to hear those who argue against any change, because the present House of Lords does a brilliant job, going on to argue—as some do—that that job cannot be done adequately without fresh powers that the House of Lords does not exercise at present. They cannot have it both ways. Either the present House of Lords is not doing much of a job—which I do not myself argue—or what is the justification for saying that more powers will be required in future to do the job it does now.
Let me make it clear, as does the White Paper, that the House of Lords has almost all the powers enjoyed by the House of Commons. If it gets more, it will probably have more power than the House of Commons. Is that really what some Conservatives are asking for? If so, they are in danger of saying that a new second Chamber should supersede this one and that it should be the pre-eminent Chamber. That is a dangerous and damaging argument.
I suspect that that is not what most of them think, but I also suspect that on this issue, as on many others, sheer opportunism and the inability to look further than the ends of their noses is leading them gleefully to advocate ideas on the basis of what they hope will embarrass the Government in the short term, without their apparently giving any real thought to the impact of what they are proposing on the country in the long term. That is playing with fire and if it persists with those tactics, the Conservative party will go down in history as the party that sought to undermine the authority of the elected House of Commons.
658
Without going into the detail of what should be the composition of a new second Chamber, there are some principles we could identify which might attract a degree of agreement and common ground.
Mr. John MacGregor: On the point about powers, is the right hon. Lady saying that she would not wish any new powers to be given to the House of Lords?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not want to pre-judge any view that the Government might wish to express at some time, but given that the House of Lords has almost all the powers enjoyed by the House of Commons—although it does not exercise them all—if the right hon. Gentleman is asking me to agree to more powers for that House, he is in danger of putting those who advocate this case in a position of arguing for more powers for the second Chamber than for the House of Commons. I do not support such a proposition and I would be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman did.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend forgive me if I ask a question that I have been asked by one of my constituents—a serious constituent—and will she give me some advice on how to answer it? My constituent asked whether it is proper that the Speaker of the Holyrood Parliament should also be a Member of the House of Lords, and whether that creates some problems of interface between the House of Lords and the Holyrood Parliament? I do not expect my right hon. Friend to answer this somewhat arcane question off the top of her head, but perhaps she might write to me at her convenience.
Mrs. Beckett: I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me the courtesy of writing to him about it. He is right. I fear that it is not a matter on which I feel emboldened to venture off the cuff. It is, indeed, a serious constitutional point, not only for the House of Lords or indeed for this Parliament, and it is certainly interesting. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend is not sure how to answer it; I am not either, but I shall take advice.
Without getting into the detail of what should be the composition of a new second Chamber, we can identify some principles that might attract a degree of agreement and common ground. The body itself should be more legitimate than it is now; it should be stable; it should be a suitable body to revise and scrutinise; it should be distinctive and embody real expertise. It should represent a range of economic and social interests and have independence—both in the sense that its members should feel free to express their opinions honestly and in the sense that no political party should command a majority.
Hon. Members will be aware that, although the Government have not given evidence to the royal commission, the Labour party has. I have not been part of that consultation process, but I have talked with some of those who have. The process seems to have been most interesting, both in its conduct and in its outcome.
I am told by those who attended the Labour party's regional consultation that there was a thorough, well-informed and practical debate. Much to the surprise of some who took part in that consultation, there was apparently little appetite for the prospect of and potential

659
for that confrontation which seems to be the chief hope and expectation, perhaps inevitably, of many media commentators.
Ordinary members of our party were interested in a process where voices other than those of the House of Commons could be heard; experience other than ours could be aired and points of view different from the points of view naturally held and expressed in this Chamber could be taken into account. I am told that there was little if any appetite for duplicating this Chamber and none for a built-in process of confrontation. Mature debate, and mature and considered decision taking seem to be what members of the Labour party who gave evidence to our consultation seek, and what they urge on the royal commission.
It is a reminder to us, irrespective of party, of what our citizens expect of Parliament—mature debate, and mature and considered decision taking. I believe that the White Paper and the process it sets in train is an important step along the road of creating a better forum for decision and debate in the future—a forum that will not merely replace, but greatly improve what we have now.
4.8 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: I am grateful that the Leader of the House has finally got round to having a debate on the White Paper and grateful, too, for the tone of her speech, which was much more conciliatory than the one that she used on the launch of the White Paper. It is healthy that the debate is being conducted more in today's atmosphere rather than in that of the unfortunate first opening salvo.
It is rather strange that the right hon. Lady should not only fail to say anything new today, but effectively apologise for the Government having no views on taking forward one of the flagship proposals in their manifesto. We are finally getting to talk about stage 2 of the reform, but all that we are getting is a clear admission that the Government have embarked upon it without knowing what they actually want. We always suggested that that was the case—that the Government had no idea of what they wanted as part of the process that they set out in their manifesto —and today we have heard the clearest possible admission that that is the case.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had said exactly what we wanted to do at the second stage, would not the hon. Gentleman have accused us of setting up a royal commission on a totally false basis? The Government have quite rightly appointed a royal commission to look at the issue and the Labour party, as a political party separate from the Government, has submitted views.
Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman, who has attended some of our previous debates, will know that the Opposition's position is that a royal commission could have been set up two years ago, when the Government came to power. We could now have been at the conclusion of that royal commission, and discussing the move towards single-stage reform by consensus. That opportunity was lost by the Government. The Opposition pushed for a royal commission, which the Government did not want, at the outset of the reform process. The Government were pushed into it by the Opposition's demands.
Mrs. Beckett: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too carried away with the notion that we might have had
660
consensus about single-stage reform, may I remind him that the Conservative party went into the last election saying that it wanted to keep the hereditary principle?
Dr. Fox: The right hon. Lady will know that we have said consistently that we would look at reform that we thought was in the national interest and that improved the way in which the UK was governed. However, we have always opposed stage 1 reform without any idea of what stage 2 would entail. Clearly, the Government have no idea what they are embarking upon, but that goes for all of their constitutional changes. They have not thought through any of their policies, and we will suffer as a result. However, that is par for the course for the Government, who start projects with no idea of how they are to finish.
The royal commission could have been finished by now, but there is delay. The initial deadline was December this year, but perhaps the Leader of the House can tell us whether that will now be as late as March or April next year. There are rumours that the royal commission will be allowed to sit longer if it Nishes. How much longer will it be given? How long will the Joint Committee take?
All hon. Members will have worked out that the timetable will take us perilously close to the next general election, almost certainly making sure that no legislation could be proposed to implement stage 2 before that election. Therefore, we will go to the general election not knowing the outcome of that election in terms of the composition of the House of Commons, and not knowing the nature of the Parliament in terms of its structure. That is entirely unacceptable. There is a suggestion that the Government want to kick this matter into the long grass to prevent divisions in their own party on the subject, in the run-up to the next election.
I want to take the Leader of the House to task on some of the points that she raised because—as with the Prime Minister at Question Time today—rather than dealing with the real policies of the Opposition, she simply invented Opposition policies to try to knock them down.
We must look at the role of Parliament as a whole. I fundamentally disagree with the Leader of the House when she says that reform of the House of Lords can be looked at in isolation. What happens in one part of Parliament necessarily impacts on the functioning of the other. Therefore, we need to look at Parliament as a complete entity. We cannot deal with one Chamber in isolation.
The assumption from the remit of the royal commission is that the House of Commons will not be reformed, and that therefore the commission has to make changes to the House of Lords to increase its powers of scrutiny or to get it to work better. Given that the royal commission is not able to look at the workings of the House of Commons, that is the only assumption that I can make. We have said that we must look at a series of relationships, and not only that of the two Chambers in this Parliament. Given the other changes to our constitutional framework, other relationships must be looked at.
The first of those is the relationship between Parliament and the Executive. The Leader of the House said that the Opposition were pretending that, in some way, this Government were not being scrutinised as well as

661
previous Governments. Our argument has been that Parliament as a whole has been unable to scrutinise any Executive in recent years, and that is a fundamental flaw. Governments in office—including Conservative Governments—necessarily think that, having got the power, they do not want it scrutinised too much.
If we are to have a meaningful debate on reform, the House of Commons must get some of its self-respect back and decide that the Executive need to be brought to account better for the sake of the good governance of the United Kingdom. We will have to make sure that the House of Lords has suitable powers of scrutiny to bring the Executive to account.
Having spent two years in the Government Whips Office, I am all too aware of the power that the Whips exert, partly because there is no alternative career structure to the patronage handed out by the Executive. We must include that in our consideration of the way in which Parliament as a whole operates.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I understand that the Opposition are veering towards having an elected element in the second Chamber. If we give the second Chamber an advise and consent role, we must ensure that the elected politicians in it should not themselves be the beneficiaries of any ministerial or other patronage. It is absolutely vital that we do not create a new cadre of ambitious elected career politicians.
Dr. Fox: I will deal later with the Conservative proposals under the Mackay commission, but my hon. Friend's general point is extremely important, and I hope that he will expand on it later in the debate.
Parliament must consider other relationships. One of the factors that makes the Leader of the House wrong to say that we can undertake reform of one Chamber in isolation is the role of the judiciary. Given the Human Rights Act 1998 and other changes in the political nature of the judiciary, it is inevitable that there will be a new relationship between the judiciary and both Houses of Parliament. We cannot divorce one from the other.
Mrs. Beckett: How does the hon. Gentleman square his expressed desire for stage 2 to be implemented before the next general election with his further list of things that he thinks that the royal commission should scrutinise before stage 2 reform takes place?
Dr. Fox: That has to be part of a wider process. I would welcome a broader remit to consider how the whole of Parliament works and how all the changes are to be implemented. It was not the Conservative party but the Government who set the artificial timetable for the changes. We would all have been better served if they had started the process two years earlier and taken account of the broader arguments. It is unfortunate, in terms of the wider picture, if the Government really think that we can reform one Chamber in isolation.
We must also consider the relationships between Parliament and other bodies that have arisen as a result of Acts of Parliament: not least, the devolved bodies in Wales and Scotland. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned the relationship between the
662
Presiding Officer's roles in both the Scottish Parliament and the House of Lords. That is a valid point that must be considered, as must Parliament's relationship with Europe.
The Leader of the House mentioned the legislation that comes from the European Union. I wonder whether there are many hon. Members who believe that we really fulfil our primary duty to scrutinise the way in which we legislate in the name of the people whom we are chosen to represent. With the vast amount of secondary legislation that goes through Parliament, do we believe that we are performing our democratic role of ensuring that it is all properly scrutinised and that we are not passing legislation affecting our fellow citizens that we are unhappy about?
It would be an ideal role for the second Chamber to play a greater part in the scrutiny of secondary legislation. I hope that that will be considered as a positive suggestion. It is not true that, to increase the powers of scrutiny of the second Chamber, one has necessarily to reduce the powers of the House of Commons. It is entirely possible to increase the powers of scrutiny of the House of Lords at the expense of the Executive without in any way diminishing the House of Commons.
Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point, but would it not be better if the House were to take unto itself the power to amend statutory instruments? One of the most objectionable features of secondary legislation is that it is incapable of change unless it is laid before the House in draft form, and then it depends on the will of the Government to change the draft.
Dr. Fox: That is an extremely important point, and we shall all have to think seriously about it in the context of the wider reforms. The shadow Leader of the House is considering it as part of the Conservative party's review of those wider subjects, and we are right to do that. My right hon. and learned Friend may want to make an internal submission to contribute to the thinking and policy development of the Conservative party, which is showing all the signs of being light years ahead of any development on the Government side.
The idea that the only way to increase the power of the House of Lords is at the expense of the House of Commons is false. It is an argument used by the Executive to protect their power from increased scrutiny.
As I have said, we must seriously consider whether we give Members of the House of Commons an alternative career structure that does not depend on keeping the Whips happy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said in a previous debate, the present system of getting rid of the hereditaries, but keeping the powers of the Whips, simply means, "Out with the ermine and in with the straitjackets."
We do not want the power of the Executive to increase as a result of what the Government are doing. We must still believe that the results of their actions, if not their intentions—I have great doubts about those—will not weaken Parliament as a whole in relation to the Executive.
I hope that the Leader of the House will accept the fact that we have never questioned the legitimacy of the Government's carrying out their manifesto commitment to abolish the voting rights of the hereditary peers. We have always said that we welcome reform if it results in

663
the better governance of this country. However, we have questioned the wisdom of what the Government are doing, their timetable and their motives, because we believe that they are motivated not by an interest in improving the way in which Parliament works but in further sidelining Parliament to the benefit of Ministers. That will result in a move towards de facto single-chamber government.
There is a suspicion among the Opposition that many people within the Government would welcome that. The way in which the House of Commons has been treated by members of the Executive can only strengthen that suspicion. To set up a House of Lords chosen entirely by nomination by the Prime Minister or by agents appointed by him would undermine the independence of the upper House.
There seems to be a disturbing pattern of authoritarianism in the Labour proposals. That includes the other constitutional changes, as voters will find out tomorrow, when they realise that they cannot choose which candidate to vote for. That is all about centralising power; it increases the power of politicians while diminishing the power of the voters.
It is therefore difficult for us to have faith that the Government's intention in the reform of Parliament is not to weaken Parliament to the benefit of the Executive. There is little support out there for creating an appointed House. It is hard to find anyone who supports the Government in their option of an appointed Chamber, even as an interim measure.
Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor, said:
"I think that it would be very important to avoid the perception of the biggest quango in our nation's history".
That is exactly what will be created if the policies in Labour's submission are carried forward, and many of us believe that that is exactly what the Prime Minister wants. There is a great risk of creating a compliant halfway house of yes men, which the Prime Minister, in particular, would like to last as long as possible.
According to reports, the Prime Minister does not bother to take particularly seriously either his duties in the Palace of Westminster, or his duties to attend Cabinet. As we all know, he is increasing the central power of the political machinery at the expense of the parties in the country and of individual voters.
Anthony Barnett, the former director of Charter 88, said:
"Surely Labour should first decide how it will replace the Lords with a democratic Chamber? Otherwise it will create an Upper House that is so pliant and illegitimate that it will expose the government to the charge of dictatorship".
Charter 88 said that, not the Conservatives.
Mr. Bill Rammell: If the hon. Gentleman opposes an appointed second Chamber, does that mean that the Conservative party will support a wholly elected second Chamber? If not, what proportion of the new Chamber's composition will be derived through elections?
Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman makes an utterly illogical leap from one position to the other. He can look at the Conservative party's submission to the royal commission, but this problem was created by the Government. He should not look to the Opposition for ways out of the hole
664
dug by the Government. That is what Governments are for and, when the Minister replies to the debate this evening, we shall expect some answers.
Mr. Rammell rose—
Dr. Fox: I shall come to the Mackay commission and the proposals put forward by the Conservative party in a moment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me a little.
I want to mention one other opinion on the appointed Chamber. Vernon Bogdanor, professor of politics at Oxford university, has said:
"It is by no mean obvious why the ability to defer the wishes of one's party leader constitutes a better title to a place in a legislative chamber than the claims of hereditary. Labour's proposals for a purely nominated chamber would involve a quite unacceptable increase in prime ministerial patronage."
We are supposed to believe that, because the Prime Minister will give up his ability to nominate Cross Benchers, that will be all right. However, that is more than offset by the exclusion of any independent element. I shall return to that in moment.
We have always advocated that there must be an independent element in any upper Chamber for it to be effective.
Mrs. Beckett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not pretending that the Government are taking out the independent element in the upper House. Is he arguing that the only people who can be independent are the hereditary peers? If so, most of the rest of the House of Lords would find that very insulting.
Dr. Fox: One reason for the Government's keenness to press ahead with the changes is that they do not like any independent criticism. They will find that many peers—hereditary and otherwise—will have the courage to do what Labour Back Benchers did not have the courage to do over the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. I am sure that the electorate will thank them for that.
By their every change to our constitutional arrangements, the Government are trying to diminish the power of those who are able to influence the political process but who do not belong to a political party. That is one of the most disturbing trends of the Government's proposals.
Mrs. Beckett indicated dissent.
Dr. Fox: The right hon. Lady shakes her head, but I shall give her an example. The people who are able to choose who will sit in the European Parliament are not the voters in an election but the party bosses in their party headquarters. That increases the power of the parties, and decreases the power of any independent element, including that of the electorate.
Mrs. Beckett: I look forward to the next general election, when—the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying—every constituency will be offered a choice of Conservative candidates. If that is not what the hon. Gentleman is saying, he is making a stupid point-not for the first time. He pretends that, in some way, the electorate have lost a power, which they enjoyed in

665
the past, to choose individual candidates from political parties. In his constituency, the hon. Gentleman stands as the sole representative of the Conservative party, as I stand as the sole representative of the Labour party in mine. There is nothing unusual about that.
With regard to the possibility of making a different change, all hon. Members are worried about the level of interest in, and concern about, the European elections, because we all recognise that the European Parliament has important powers. Given the present size of ballot papers, does the hon. Gentleman agree that people would be put off if they were also asked to pick out individual candidates? I am sure that people could do so, but whether they could be bothered is quite another matter.
Dr. Fox: I thought that the right hon. Lady was going to keep up her conciliatory tone for an entire debate, and not descend to her usual level. I am reassured to find that she has done so in the end.
What will happen in tomorrow's European elections is symptomatic of what the Government are doing, in that the power of the parties over the electorate will be increased, as I shall describe. If one of those elected under a list system drops out, it is up to the political parties to decide who should replace him or her. The electorate have no say: that is a clear example of how the parties are trying to centralise their authority.
We had the utter nonsense of the recent debate in the Scottish Parliament, in which list members were told that their job was not to represent constituents—for which they get less money—but to represent the political parties. What sort of democratic obscenity is it when Parliament is supposed to represent the politicians rather than the people? Democracy is being stood on its head by the Government's arguments. Labour Members will have a real difficulty when the Bill comes back from the House of Lords. Let me remind the House of what Labour's manifesto said:
"The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute."
We have all heard Ministers mocking hereditary peers and saying how unacceptable it is that they sit in the House of Lords. The Home Secretary said that the first fundamental objection to the position of the hereditary peers was that they were hereditary. He said that we should
"imagine lying open-mouthed in the dentist's chair as the dentists drilled into the gum instead of the teeth. That would raise questions about his skills. Imagine if, when asked to produce his certificate of competence, he brought out one awarded in 1860 to his great great uncle William, but said not to worry because the skills had been transmitted through the genes."—[Official Report, 30 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 571.]
I remember hearing howls of laughter from Labour Back Benchers, the same Back Benchers who trekked through the Lobby to vote down the Weatherill amendment when it was offered in this House. We know that, once the proposals have been accepted in the House of Lords, the same Back Benchers will, on the instruction of their Whips, vote for them, in direct contravention of their manifesto.
Mr. Rammell: As we are in the business of trading embarrassments, will it not be a greater embarrassment
666
for the Conservatives and their leader to vote for a proposal for which the Leader of the Opposition sacked the Conservative leader of the Lords?
Dr. Fox: We all make mistakes when we take interventions. The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that the situation at that time had nothing to do with the content of the proposals but arose over agreement to a deal that no one but the shadow Cabinet had the authority to accept.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has precisely described why this House is failing to discharge its role of holding the Executive to account. It is true of all Governments, not only the present one, that they use their Whips to ensure that Back Benchers do whatever the Government want. In this case, that means either voting for or against the Weatherill amendment. That is what is so destructive of truly accountable Government.
Dr. Fox: What is most damaging about this episode is that the Government have not even pretended to act from a point of principle. They said that they would do whatever was necessary. If that meant countermanding their manifesto, they would tolerate that. If it meant blatantly forcing Members to go back on what they had previously voted for, the Government would force them to do so. Perhaps the Leader of the House will confirm that the Government intend to march their troops through the Lobby to vote for the Weatherill proposals. That seems the only logical position given that the Government backed those proposals in the House of Lords. Will the Leader of the House tell us that?
Mrs. Beckett: No.
Dr. Fox: Perhaps it is too embarrassing for her to admit what the Government are going to do to their Back Benchers.
Mrs. Beckett: I certainly shall not comment and nor shall my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, but the other place has not yet finished with the Bill.
Dr. Fox: What courage, what leadership, what great principle.
Mrs. Beckett: Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman in words of one syllable what I meant. Amendments have been tabled to the Weatherill amendment, and none of us knows whether they will be carried.
Dr. Fox: We have a fair idea of the Government's position. I do not know whether it is appropriate—perhaps it is against the rules of the House—to offer the Leader of the House a wager. I shall wager £10 for her favourite charity that she ultimately forces her Back Benchers in precisely the opposite direction to that which they took when the Weatherill proposals were previously debated in this House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Perhaps it would be better if that wager were kept metaphorical.
Dr. Fox: I am not a gambling man, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have never even been to a bookie.

667
Let me return to the point made by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell). The Conservative position has been clear throughout the debate. We saw no need for reform of the House of Lords. There was nothing about it in our manifesto. However, we have accepted that the Government are implementing the proposals in their manifesto and that the status quo is no longer an option. As the Leader of the House has pointed out, I have also said that the Conservative party will not reintroduce hereditary peers after we win the next general election. We must therefore consider ways of introducing an independent element into the upper House.
I commend the Mackay report to Labour Members who have not read it. It is an elegant and extraordinarily interesting discourse that takes the debate on House of Lords reform to levels never achieved by the Government. It proposes two models. It is not a question of an entirely elected or an entirely appointed House. One of the Mackay options is a partly elected House. Members could be elected in many different ways. Another option is to move to an almost fully elected House with a proportion of Members appointed by the Executive so that Ministers could work in the upper House. It is an interesting document and we will consult on it in the Conservative party to find how our party thinks reform should be taken forward.
I hope that the hon. Member for Harlow will give us credit for having moved the debate much further than have the Government. The contributions in print of several of my hon. Friends have added much to the debate on the House of Lords on both sides of the argument. I am genuinely sorry that the Government were not more willing to outline some of the options that the Labour party, if not the Government, might consider for stage 2 reform.
The Government's contribution has been extraordinarily sterile. They have proposed a change with no idea of how to carry it through. They have muddled along. They do not know how they want our constitutional framework to look and have little idea of what the Executive's relationship with people or Parliament should be beyond having more power centralised and more power given to political parties for the Prime Minister to exercise greater control through those organs.
I hope that this debate marks the beginning of the House of Commons re-establishing a little of its self-respect. In the wider process of reform, let us remember that our primary duty is the scrutiny and production of legislation and the provision of a framework for what we are meant to do: to govern wisely and well those whom we are elected to represent.
4.37 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I agree with one aspect of what the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said. On the proper use of Back Benchers, there is a need for the alternative career structure that he mentioned. The Select Committee that I have the privilege to chair, the Liaison Committee, is considering that. It is examining what changes should be suggested halfway through a Parliament for the future role of Select Committees and considering how they can carry out their investigative role, which cannot easily be reproduced in any other forum. They can question the people responsible for important decisions and come back at them again and
668
again. They can seek memorandums and have the power to call for whatever persons, papers or records we require. Something is happening on that and I await the results in due course.
Dr. Fox: The right hon. Gentleman has much more experience than most hon. Members. Is he saying that he believes that the House does not have sufficient scrutiny powers to control an Executive who seem increasingly capable of legislating by Executive action through secondary legislation?
Mr. Sheldon: My view is that the Select Committees are doing very well. They were set up two years ago and this is a suitable time to consider whether there can or should be changes to make them even more effective. That is what is being done through our consultations.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House opened this debate in a way that wholly commended itself to me and many others when she said that she is a House of Commons woman through and through. That is what the Leader of the House should be and I welcome that assertion. Of course, I knew it already, but it is nice to hear it once again. My right hon. Friend also mentioned that the powers of the House of Lords are great—far too great in the opinion of many Labour Members. The only limit on the activities of Members of the House of Lords is the way in which they exercise those powers. My right hon. Friend was right to draw attention to that point.
My view of the proposed legislation, as it comes back from the House of Lords, is that it would produce a transitional House; these are the first steps. My expectation is that that temporary scheme is likely to become permanent. I am sorry to disagree with some of my colleagues, but, as time goes on, the enthusiasm for constitutional reform is not likely to increase. In my experience—I have seen a fair amount of such matters in my time—that enthusiasm is likely to terminate fairly early on.
Lord Cranborne showed himself to be a most powerful and inventive person. Given the way in which he carried out his work, he is obviously the lost leader of the Tories in this generation. He knew that, as Sir John Harington put it in the 16th century:
"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
That is the point. The noble Lord's work will almost surely prosper. We may reach agreement on losing the hereditaries, save for the 90 or 92, whatever the number is, but further moves to abolish them are likely to die through the difficulties of constitution making, where there are as many solutions as there are Members of Parliament. The likelihood is that after the noble Lord's work, which he carried out to the annoyance—even the anger—of Members on the Opposition Front Bench, he could see that there was a cause worth fighting for. If he could not save all the hereditaries, he was going to save a substantial number of them.
There will be slippage. As was mentioned earlier, the second stage is likely to continue well beyond December. The matter is unlikely to be resolved in this Parliament—possibly not even in the next one. As colleagues have pointed out, we should not try to remedy the defects of the House of Commons by making changes in the House of Lords. The House of Lords should remedy not the

669
deficiencies that we see at present, but those that might be regarded as more permanent. If there are defects in this House, they need to be put right before we grant the House of Lords more powers to remedy those problems.
Mr. Hogg: What if the defects in this House are not essentially procedural, but stem from the fact that we do not have a separation of powers and that the Executive are Members of this place? Because the Executive, through the Whips Office, can control the majority party, this House is incapable of exercising proper control of the Executive. That is not procedure; it stems from an inherent characteristic of the constitutional settlement that is in place.
Mr. Sheldon: That has been the position for the past 250 years. It was a wonderful solution, because, as long as Members of Parliament had feelings of independence, they could form part of the Executive as well as holding the Executive to account. When we considered the problems in the United States, we used to congratulate ourselves on how well we had organised matters. What has happened during the past 30 years is that Members of Parliament have become much more full time and are looking to a career structure. It is that career structure that has tended to corrupt the system. That is the problem.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: The right hon. Gentleman has made half the point that I was about to make. Is it not true that Members of Parliament were much more independent when they were of independent means?
Mr. Sheldon: Now, we have large numbers of Members of Parliament who have little in the way of outside interests and outside concerns. As a result, they look to the ordinary routes of promotion and envisage themselves forming part of the Government. In the past, many Members of substance and standing would come into the Chamber to listen to the debate; now, most Members come to the Chamber to speak in a debate. There is nothing wrong in that, but we should recognise that there was formerly an element that produced the sort of House of Commons that it was our privilege to inherit, but which we have, to a certain extent, distorted. That is the real problem.
We have been at this stage before in respect of House of Lords reform. I strongly opposed the proposals in 1968–69. At that time, there was an agreement between the two Front-Bench teams, but it was my good fortune and privilege to spot, right from the start, that there was a way to divide them in such a way as to ensure that they could never get the guillotine. By using one device or another, the opponents of the proposals ensured that that happened. The Government Back Benchers railed against Ministers and the Opposition Back Benchers railed against their Front Benchers, with the result that the legislation fell.
I could see that the legislation could not be revived, because a poll produced at the time showed that there was little support for the proposals. The House sat 14 days and nights-at that time, we had the Dick Crossman reforms, so we sat morning, afternoon, evening and night—but after those 14 days, we had reached only clause 6 of a 20-clause Bill, so the Bill was dropped.
670
The deficiencies in that legislation were far greater than the deficiencies in the current Bill. At least in the current Bill, we can see the first stage and what will happen during that period, whereas the 1968—69 legislation simply gave huge powers of patronage to two Front-Bench teams operating together. If it had been passed, not only would it have distorted the House of Lords, but, more important, it would have distorted the House of Commons by creating an aldermanic bench.
I have had some experience of an aldermanic bench. People who have been elected as councillors wait for a certain number of their colleagues to die off so that they can acquire a position in which they will never have to face another election. It is a tempting prospect: permanent positions that carry power, but no responsibility—lovely. I could foresee the result of the 1968 proposals: some Members of Parliament would have been anxious to obtain one of those aldermanic posts, so there would have been patronage in this place, because Front Benchers would have been able to offer an attractive combination of power with security and pay. We must concern ourselves with both powers and composition, even at the first stage.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The right hon. Gentleman has thoroughly described the shortcomings of the 1968 proposals. Does he take issue with the Labour party submission which states:
"There is a great deal of wisdom in these earlier proposals for House of Lords reform which would repay careful examination today"?
Mr. Sheldon: Given that I spent a great deal of my political life fighting such proposals, I am not likely to change my mind 30 years on. Those proposals were flawed. At the time they were debated, the House could not get the guillotine—it could not even get 100 Members to move the closure; it got only 99, and that was the end of that.
The whole point is that Back Benchers have been underappreciated. Back Benchers are not always wrong, even on the big issues. In my time, we have had devaluation, which should have occurred far sooner; we have had the east of Suez policy, when the Government said that this country's frontiers were on the Himalayas, which was a load of nonsense and I fought against it; we have had the poll tax, against which we should have fought harder. On those and many other issues, Back Benchers knew better than the Government of the day, but the House of Commons failed to turn that general feeling into decision making. It was not the House of Commons or the system that was weak; it was the individuals who failed to put right what was wrong.
What needs to be done? We must consider the scrutiny of legislation by the House of Commons, which is the backbone of its work. We perform two types of examination of legislation—one is examination to see whether it is efficient, economic and effective. That is the Public Accounts Committee work of ensuring that everything that is done is done in the best possible way. The other role concerns aspects of policy, and the role of Government Back Benchers is even more important when the Government have a large majority. Francis Pym, who lost his position for his pains, was right to point out the dangers of large majorities. I welcome the Labour party being in power, but we must be careful that we understand

671
the difficulties of a large majority and find a role for Members of Parliament so that they can use their abilities to the full.
What is the solution? We must use the House of Commons more effectively, as both a debating and a decision-making body. Some in the Government have always believed that, in the interests of party unity, different views should not be openly expressed, but should be conveyed quietly to the relevant Ministers for their reconsideration. With many Ministers that is an effective way to achieve change, as we have seen in the past day or so. What if it does not work? Should the alternative views not be put? Should Members of Parliament have to bite their lip, swallow their pride, grumble in private and await the next means of persuasion? That is not the way for a sovereign House of Commons to proceed. This is a national forum for debate and open discussion, and for argument that brings out issues openly for the people to see and decide. Anyone who believes in open government and open dissent must be a part of that.
Are Governments always right? Of course they are not. The question is whether we should exchange the pressure of Members of Parliament for pressure from the unelected peers in the House of Lords. Of course not. I have always believed in the need to maximise one's powers of persuasion. An opponent of a Government can find his or her views readily dismissed, but Government Back Benchers can have an enormous influence if they make use of their voice sensibly, moderately and sustainedly. The task of a Government Back Bencher is not to be considered outside the pale but to have it believed—including by the Whips—that one is redeemable and interested in looking for good solutions.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: What should the loyal Government Back Bencher do if they find themselves totally opposed to the Government's proposals, say, for example, on whether the upper House should be directly elected?
Mr. Sheldon: I can only answer from my own experience. I was against the Government on devaluation and on the east of Suez policy. At the time of devaluation, I was the chairman of the economic and finance group. I spoke in the House in favour of devaluation, and nine other members of the economic and finance group of the parliamentary Labour party spoke in my support on devaluation, but there was nobody in the Press Gallery and it was never reported. It was all in Hansard, but not in the papers. The House of Commons must return to being the centre of debate and argument to convince the people what is right and what should be done.
Government Back Benchers should put the arguments sensibly and clearly. If they get the debate going, they may persuade their colleagues and the Government of the need for a change. Nothing is fixed irredeemably. However, one should make one's point with courtesy and persistence.
In the 1969 debates on House of Lords reform, I was concerned the proposals would make the position of Members of the House of Lords more attractive. It would have given them powers as well as salaries. I considered the revising powers of the House of Lords and I was impressed by the arguments of Professor Griffiths who showed that nearly all the substantive amendments in the Lords were the result of Government actions.
672
I accept that the position has changed in the past 30 years. Government legislation is now more hurried and requires more amendments. Nevertheless, the fault for defective legislation lies with the House of Commons. Legislation is defective not because it has not been examined properly in the House of Lords but because the 659 Members in this place have not highlighted the flaws. That is a problem of application and of principle.
The only legislation that requires amendment from an outside body is the quinquennial Act. We clearly cannot change that Act ourselves: we cannot legislate to continue as Members of Parliament without calling a general election. I am also concerned about the domination of this Chamber by the Executive. Reference has been made to that problem, which has existed for 30 or 40 years—although it was not such a powerful obstacle when I was first elected to this place. Today, almost all Members of Parliament are full-time Members and they want a career structure. That leads to dominance first by the Executive and then by central party organisations. That is a serious matter.
I was not expected to be chosen to contest my seat of Ashton-under-Lyne: it was purely accidental. I only went along for the ride. I never expected to be a Member of Parliament—it was just one of those strange things that happens. I am not sure that that sort of thing will occur again—although there are many people in a similar position. We should have Members of Parliament from different backgrounds. A central party organisation produces clones too readily, and we do not want that in this place. Members of Parliament should have diverse views and characteristics.
Faced with those problems, people look to the second Chamber to provide solutions. However, the second Chamber can also be influenced by the Executive. The Executive have the power and may find themselves forced to exert in the other place the control that they wield in the House of Commons.
Mr. David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the powers of the Executive in this and in another place. Does he believe that the Executive should be represented in the other Chamber if it is to carry out its legislative scrutiny role properly? Why should the Executive be represented in another place?
Mr. Sheldon: We look forward to seeing the royal commission's report. I do not see how those serving on a royal commission can agree about an issue such as this. If I were to put the people I know on a royal commission panel, I would assemble as many views as there were commission members. It will be interesting to see how the royal commission will come to some agreement and whether its members will be prepared to compromise their views.
The major question is how to ensure that hon. Members have the reasonable level of independence necessary to secure good legislation and an active debate that represents the views in the country and focuses the nation on the issues that concern it most. In this connection, the only alternative to the dogfight between two sides of the House—which is necessary, but not sufficient—is the role of Government Back Benchers.
There will be no satisfactory solution so long as the House of Commons does not fulfil its traditional role, which has existed at least since the Reform Act of 1832.

673
If it fulfils that role, the House of Lords will be less important and a new system may be devised more readily. The message is that the House of Commons must fulfil its function and then look to the House of Lords to fill in the far fewer gaps in our constitution.
4.59 pm
Mr. John MacGregor: I shall begin by making two comments on points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). They are points that I have made in the past, but they are worth repeating in any debate on the House of Lords.
First, I agree with all the criticism of the Government for proceeding with phase 1 without knowing what phase 2 will be. They have put the cart before the horse. It is clear that the Government gave no thought beforehand to the long-term consequences of their proposals. The speech by the Leader of the House made that particularly clear, because she dodged all the issues of what phase 2 might consist of, and resorted to leaving that question to the royal commission and then to the Joint Committee and the House. That is a fundamental criticism of the Government.
Secondly, I agree also with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I suspect that we shall be stuck with phase 1 for a long time, partly because of the run-up to the next election and the processes that must be gone through, and partly, as the right hon. Gentleman said, because of the difficulties of reaching any agreement, not least in the royal commission, and in the House, about what a long-term phase 2 should be. I believe that the House of Lords as it will be constituted under the House of Lords Bill will be in place for a very long time, which I find deeply unsatisfactory.
I was not sure how the right hon. Gentleman would conclude his speech, because he spent most of his time talking about the House of Commons, rather than the House of Lords. I suspected that he would say, as he did, that, if the Commons reformed itself correctly in a number of the ways that he outlined, it would not matter too much what the House of Lords was like because it would not have many functions. I do not share his optimism—if there is optimism, which I doubt—that the Commons will be able to address some of the points that he made. It is therefore important to consider the composition and powers of the second Chamber.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does my right hon. Friend agree that nothing would provide a greater incentive for reform of the House of Commons than the reformed House of Lords doing its job correctly?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree, and I shall return to that point later.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to the increasing dangers of the power of the Executive over the legislature and the centralisation of powers. If we leave in place a weakened House of Lords, which I suspect we shall have, and an unreformed House of Commons, which we shall probably have also, the power of the Executive will continue to increase. That is why we
674
need to consider a stronger House of Lords and, perhaps, a reformed House of Commons. However, a reformed Commons will not, on its own, be sufficient.
Mr. Tyrie: Does my right hon. Friend think that the likelihood of Commons reform would be greatly enhanced if the Lords were given moral authority and powers? That would stimulate this place into reforming itself.
Mr. MacGregor: It might, and I just agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on that very point. It is much more likely that the Commons will reform itself if we have a House of Lords that is different from that envisaged in the Bill going through Parliament at present.
Having made two points that have frequently been made and with which I strongly agree, I turn now to the future and the royal commission and its report. Lord Wakeham's royal commission began in an excellent manner. I have read the consultation paper several times, and it raises most of the big issues, only a few of which I shall have time to refer to today. I am encouraged by the fact that it has not assumed certain points, particularly those relating to powers, but is raising all the fundamental issues relating to powers as well as composition. I shall comment on the criteria, the powers and the composition.
On the criteria, I absolutely share the position of the Leader of the House and agree with her about the pre-eminence of the House of Commons. I am an out-and-out House of Commons man, and the only difference on that point between me and the right hon. Lady is one of sex. I shall comment on one criterion that is included in the consultation paper and one that is not. The first, which I want particularly to single out, is the importance of the second Chamber complementing, rather than duplicating, this Chamber.
Mrs. Beckett indicated assent.
Mr. MacGregor: That criterion leads to a number of conclusions, and although the Leader of the House nodded on that point, I thought that her remarks about powers demonstrated that she has a closed mind about the second Chamber complementing the Commons. If she takes that point seriously, it will lead her to consider more powers for the House of Lords.
On page 6 of the White Paper, the Government say that
"the second chamber must have a distinctive role",
and on page 7 they refer to a "fundamental transformation" of the constitutional processes, including the way in which the House of Lords is reformed. The complementary nature is a key criterion, and will underline everything that I shall say about powers and composition.
A criterion that is not listed, but which is very important, is that the second Chamber must attract high-calibre people who have a wide range of experience and expertise. I agree with the Leader of the House on this; she mentioned the issue, but did not follow it through. If we are honest, perhaps too much of the House of Lords is in the nature of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) described in a recent article in the Evening Standard as:
"A pleasant club and a debating chamber made up of people who are reluctant to retire from public life but don't want to go through the process of election any more."

675
That is something of a caricature, although there is an element of truth in it. It does not lead me to the same conclusion as that drawn by my right hon. and learned Friend, which was that the second Chamber should be wholly elected—I shall come to that—but it is an important point in considering what we want the House of Lords to do.
Attracting high-calibre people who have a wide range of experience and expertise is fundamental. We need to do so if we are to have a stronger Chamber than now—and one that is respected. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, it is becoming more and more difficult for this House to attract people in the middle of, or slightly later on in, their careers, who have considerable experience and expertise from a range of walks of life. This House—I regret this—is therefore composed more and more of people who are full-time politicians, from the time they leave their educational experiences to their retirement from this Chamber. In other words, we are increasingly politician-dominated.
People with outside careers, who in the past have entered the House in their late 30s and contributed a great deal, must now choose between that outside career and a much lower salary and—frankly—poorer pensions. That is partly because we make it more difficult for people to have outside interests, but mainly because if people lose their seats in their late 40s or early 50s, they find it extremely difficult, given the nature of the world of work today, to pick up the threads, have anything like an attractive career in the run-up to their retirement and secure a reasonable pension.
I speak with some feeling on the matter because, as chairman of the House of Commons trustees pension fund, I see acute cases among ex-colleagues who have lost their seats in their late 40s and early 50s. People outside the House are aware of that, and, as a result, do not want to enter it. The House of Lords could assist in bringing in such outside experience, thus complementing and supplementing this place.
We will not fulfil either key criteria unless we recognise the need to tackle the question of powers. If the reform is to be proper, thorough and long term—that ought to be the Government's aim—the second Chamber must make a contribution to the political life of the nation that is noticed and respected. The media must take notice of it, and the establishment, the Government and the civil service must take it into account. It must also affect decisions⁁that means changing as well as influencing Government policy.
I accept that one of the weaknesses of the strong hereditary composition of the House of Lords was that, in practice, it constrained that body in its exercise of such functions. Therefore, even when it had such powers, it did not exercise them very fully. If I am honest, speaking as a former Minister with 15 years' experience in government, I also know that, quite often, the belief that the House of Lords has a powerful influence over policy and the practice are two different things. Therefore, it is important to strengthen the House of Lords in that regard. If the House of Lords is to act as a better second-Chamber check on the Executive than it does now, it must have strengthened powers. I hope that I have shown that I believe that it is crucial to tackle the question of powers first, and composition second.
I was critical of the White Paper because it gave much more attention to composition than to powers. In fact, at some points, it talks of weakening the powers of a second
676
Chamber. Indeed, I was a little concerned that the Leader of the House was going down that route today when she said that she did not believe that the House of Lords should have more powers than it has at present. I am very glad that the royal commission is not approaching its task in that way.
If I were at all critical of the excellent report from Lord Mackay and his colleagues—it was instituted by the Conservative party, and is an excellent contribution to the debate; it has certainly moved the arguments on considerably—I would say only that it tended to take the view that the powers of the House of Lords should be left as they are and should evolve organically, rather than being tackled now. I believe that there will not be a third chance to consider the powers of the other place. Indeed, today we have already argued that there is a danger that there will not be a second opportunity to do so. It is therefore important to consider the matter of powers now.
What should the powers be? Moreover, how will the powers be used, and will they be used?
Mr. Maclennan: Before the right hon. Gentleman deals with those matters, will he perhaps lend support to his argument by instancing examples, drawn from his long 15-year experience of government, of when the Government might have been assisted by the House of Lords exercising powers, and when he believes that, ultimately, amendments for the better would consequently have been made? Will he give some examples? An admission that Governments have got it wrong is very rare in this Chamber.
Mr. MacGregor: I shall list four issues related to powers additional to those already held by the House of Lords, and, in doing so, I should answer the right hon. Gentleman's question. All the issues arise from my own feelings and experience in government.
Secondary legislation is the first issue. I am delighted that, in its submission to the royal commission, the Conservative party has highlighted the importance of strengthening both Houses—although, in this debate, we are talking only about the House of Lords—in their handling of secondary legislation. I am delighted also that, in one of its questions, the royal commission asked about
"providing for the Second Chamber's opposition to any subordinate legislation to result in delay and reconsideration (by the Commons), rather than rejection."
I think that the way in which Parliament as a whole deals with secondary legislation is now a disgrace. The situation has become very much worse because of the habit of all Governments, but very much of the current one, of addressing so many key issues in secondary legislation because they do not have the time or do not wish to think through the consequences in primary legislation. As the practice has become so much more intensively practised, it has become much more important to answer the question of how this Chamber and the other Chamber should handle secondary legislation.
Mr. Letwin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prevalence of so-called Henry VIII clauses, in which secondary legislation is permitted to amend or revoke primary legislation, has almost got to the stage of turning the tables by making secondary primary, and primary secondary?
Mr. MacGregor: That is not always the case, of course, but very often it is. It must be a subject of great

677
concern for all of us, as it has greatly strengthened the Executive's powers and made almost non-existent the legislature's powers of scrutinising.
As we all know, this House is able either to reject in to or to accept in toto secondary legislation—statutory instruments—but cannot amend it. In Committee, when one is under pressure on a particular aspect of a Bill referring a matter to secondary legislation, the big concession that one makes—I have been guilty of it—is to agree that it is important, and therefore to agree that it should be dealt with by affirmative rather than by negative resolution. Big deal. When a Government have the majority that the current Government do, affirmative resolution does not amount to a row of beans. Therefore, there is no opportunity for either this House or the other House, which has a convention on secondary legislation, properly to scrutinise secondary legislation. There is no opportunity for this House to examine and amend in detail those crucial pieces of secondary legislation.
Mr. Grieve: I ask this as someone serving on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most extraordinary that, even when scrutiny—which is limited to identifying whether legislation has been properly drafted—reveals that legislation is defective and deficient, it is still open to the Government to decide, as they very frequently do, to continue with the statutory instrument in that form, with the mere assurance that, at some later date, it will be corrected?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree. The practice underlines just how few powers of scrutiny the House now has over secondary legislation. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that much worse than the example he gave is when there are real criticisms of one policy aspect of the secondary legislation, but hon. Members are asked to accept the whole thing or nothing at all. As I said, with the current Government's majority, it is well known that that entails accepting the whole legislation.
Mrs. Beckett: I do not particularly want to make a partisan point, and agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman has said—perhaps more than he has recognised. However, the notion that the practice has been introduced by the Government and is a consequence of our majority—[Interruption.] It is not a consequence of our majority. The practice has been growing over very many years, and I think that we all recognise that it has defects. Although I understand the astonishment of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) to hear the Government saying, "Yes, this is defective, but we will come back to it at some other time", I assure him that, to my knowledge, the practice has been going on for at least 15 years.
Mr. MacGregor: I thought that I had already said that all Governments have done it. However, I also said that the practice is worse now, primarily because there is increasingly a tendency to put legislation into secondary form, but also because of the Government's large majority.
Mr. Hogg: I must ask my right hon. Friend whether there is not a further dimension to the matter. Secondary
678
legislation is the vehicle for expressing in statutory language decisions applicable to the United Kingdom and emanating from the European Union, either in directives or in regulations. In respect to a whole body of that, there is—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am sure that he knows that he should be addressing the occupant of the Chair.
Mr. Hogg: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In that respect, no mechanism is available to us, either in this place or in the other place, to address the merits of that legislation.
Mr. MacGregor: That was going to be my second point. I should first finish dealing with secondary domestic legislation.
Mr. Mark Fisher rose—
Mr. MacGregor: I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for not giving way again for a while. There are things that I want to say on composition. I do not want to speak for too long, and there have already been interventions in my speech.
I just want to underline the fact—I am glad that all the interventions, including that of the Leader of the House, have supported it—that we have to address the issue of how secondary legislation should be dealt with.
The House of Lords may have more time than we do to consider secondary legislation, and if the other place attracts people with outside experience and expertise, it may have a greater ability to consider secondary legislation. I therefore believe that the House of Lords has a particularly important role in dealing with secondary legislation. It should be given powers to amend it, and certainly to delay it, to give Governments time to think again.
The second issue relating to powers that I should like to raise—European legislation—was just mentioned briefly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). To be very brief, I shall simply say that we have, of course, developed mechanisms for scrutinising European legislation. This House's mechanisms for scrutinising such legislation are fairly extensive, and are probably more extensive than those of other democratic institutions in the European Union. Nevertheless, I think that there are matters on which we could go further and in which the House of Lords could have a specific role to play.
The role of the House of Lords should include consideration of issues that will be decided in the Council of Ministers and in European legislation, but well before those decisions are taken. I stress the importance of consideration well before the decisions are taken. In my experience—as a former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and as a former Secretary of State for Transport—the House of Commons far too often debates issues that are almost already settled in a negotiating framework in Brussels. Anyone who has experience of how the Brussels system works will know that to be true.
In one sense, therefore, there are limitations to what the House of Lords could do on European legislation before final decisions on that legislation are taken, not only for

679
the reason that I have given—which could be dealt with by considering the issues very early—but because every Minister has to engage in negotiation with other Ministers and cannot himself or herself entirely achieve the wishes of this Chamber or the other Chamber.
The House of Lords could also play a much bigger part in the implementation of European legislation. As we all know, it is a common cry that the United Kingdom tends to implement legislation much more extremely and thoroughly than other member states do. Clearly, there is a role not only for the second Chamber but for this Chamber in ensuring that we do not burden ourselves with consequential legislation that goes way beyond what is needed. The second Chamber should also have a role in subsequently examining how European legislation has worked. The other place should have powers in performing that important role.
My third point is that more use should be made of the revising power of the second Chamber. Two years' breathing space on legislation may well be desirable. I do not often agree with Earl Russell, but I agree with what he wrote recently in The Sunday Telegraph about the House of Lords:
"It is only because we have the power to vote that the Commons ever listens to anything we say. Only if the functions of the reformed House include the right to revise legislation, against the wishes of the Commons, will it be worth bothering with."
There is a grain of truth in that. The revising powers need to be looked at.
My fourth suggestion relates to the Select Committees of the second Chamber, which do a splendid job and have a substantial reputation. They are one of the second Chamber's current strengths, particularly because they enable unelected people who have spent a long time in other careers to bring their experience to bear. They are highly regarded, but I wonder how much influence their reports have. They are read by the experts and civil servants, but I must admit that they are not always the first documents that a Minister reads when dealing with policy issues in this place.
We could strengthen the powers of the Committees by building on the excellent work of the Joint Committee on the Financial Services and Markets Bill, with reports to inform both Chambers. Pre-legislative Select Committees in the House of Lords, given the composition that I hope for, could have a substantial role. I hope that that answers the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) by showing some areas in which the powers could be extended.
Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall be brief. Having given evidence as a Minister to Lords Committees, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is potentially the most frightening experience that a Minister can have?
Mr. MacGregor: I must have been lucky, because I do not recall that being the case. I certainly found the Committees stimulating and prepared heavily for them, as Ministers do for anything in this Chamber. However, if that was my right hon. Friend's experience, it strengthens my view that the Committees add to the ability of the second Chamber to contribute by dealing with pre-legislative issues.
I am doubtful about the concept of a wholly directly elected second Chamber. First, it would duplicate this Chamber. Secondly, as the White Paper pointed out,
680
it would be a recipe for conflict. The endless tensions are one reason why this Chamber would never agree to it. Unfortunately, such a Chamber would divide too often on purely party lines, duplicating what happens here. Thirdly, the second Chamber would expect a real and different role. If it did not get one, those who stood for election to it would, if they will forgive me, be the failed candidates for membership of this House, regarding it as a stepping stone towards their hope of coming here. Such a Chamber would not be a step forward. If it did not have powers, it would not attract people with a wide range of experience and careers to its wholly elected posts. It would certainly not be independent—that is an important element that many people have referred to—even under the ingenious Mackay proposals whereby Members would be elected for 15 years in total, with one third being elected every five years. That would remove some of the conflict and duplication, but it would not address my criticisms.
Those criticisms do not apply so much to a partly elected Chamber, but there are still difficulties that would need to be thought through, including the proportions and the possibility of there being two classes of Member. I do not have the same overall objections to a partly elected second Chamber.
The greatest merit lies in a mix of indirectly elected and nominated members. I stress the need for indirect election. I share the views of those who think that a Chamber that was wholly appointed, either by the Prime Minister or by his appointees, would be most undesirable. There are two advantages in Members being indirectly elected—independence and expertise. In his consultation paper, Lord Wakeham refers to the case for some Members to be active in other walks of life. I would go further than that: there is a strong case for a lot of Members to be active in other walks of life.
Mr. Hogg: And in this place.
Mr. MacGregor: As there should be in this place, but, alas, for reasons that we have discussed, that is too often not the case these days.
The bodies that would be involved in the process of indirect election are a matter for debate, and I shall not waste time on that now, but there are obvious professions, including the Church and the law, that could contribute to the indirectly elected element.
Mr. Eric Forth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if we lay too much emphasis on people who are active in other walks of life, they may not pay much attention to their duties in the second Chamber, which would diminish the ability of that Chamber to provide effective scrutiny of what the Government are doing?
Mr. MacGregor: I was coming to that. With a mix of indirectly elected, partly elected and nominated Members, there would be a considerable number of Members who could fulfil more of a full-time role. If we want to attract people with wide experience who have a lot to give to the process of legislation and debate, we have to accept that some of them can be there only part-time.
Mr. Tyrie: My right hon. Friend has argued for increased powers for the House of Lords so that it has the

681
ability to challenge the Executive and call it to account. Does he believe that a mish-mash House could have the necessary moral authority to challenge the authority of an Executive elected on a huge Commons mandate?
Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that there are grave difficulties with a wholly elected Chamber. It would duplicate the work of this Chamber. I do not accept that the only people with any moral authority are those who have been directly elected.
I have already said that Church representatives are important. I would remove the judicial role from the House of Lords and have it purely as a legislative and policy advisory Chamber, but I accept that there would need to be a substantial mix of lawyers in the indirectly elected element, because their expertise would be valuable, particularly in the scrutiny of secondary legislation. The proposals that I have outlined would provide the best mix of a second Chamber that complemented this one and attracted good people.
I cannot see the justification for the proposals regarding representatives of the devolved bodies in Scotland and Wales and the European Parliament. The proposals would duplicate the work that those Members should be doing in their own bodies. Regional interests are well represented in this House, and we should beware of excessive duplication and layers of government. The devolved bodies need to bed down first.
The proposals also raise the question of how the English regions would be represented. Representatives from regional assemblies would not be the way forward. Most of all, the proposals are wrong in principle, because there is no purpose in having a second Chamber composed of people from other elected Chambers. Absurdly, some elected representatives from this place would have to sit in the other place to represent England, complementing those from the Scottish Parliament. The case has not been made.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said that people from other walks of life might be only part-time members. Some life peers, including former colleagues from this place and some noted industrialists, hardly ever participate in the work of the House of Lords. The same is true of some hereditary peers. That has to be addressed. Members of the other place must agree to give a certain proportion of their time to the work of that place. I agree with the Mackay commission that some salary and allowance for secretarial and other help must be given, although I do not agree with the proposal that the allowances should be the same as those in this place.
I believe that this issue poses a great challenge to the House of Commons and particularly to the Government and the Government Whips. If the process is to be more than simply a device to pander to certain left-wing prejudices and get rid of the hereditary element, and is to be a genuine reform with a real purpose to improve our constitutional system and the control over the Executive, involving some of the most experienced and knowledgeable in our nation, the Government must face up to that and accept that it will mean real powers and real changes in the second Chamber. If that is not the case, we will have a House of Lords that is not much
682
different from now, except that the independent hereditary element will be displaced by appointed cronyism and even more concentration of power. That would be a hugely backward step, and I share the fear of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that that might happen. I must tell the Leader of the House that the Government will be judged on their response.
5.31 pm
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). I am pleased to tell him that I agree with the vast majority of what he said. The spirit of his speech and its bipartisan nature—that applies also to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—is necessary in what is essentially a consultative debate. This is the House's road to Lord Wakeham. Doubtless his commission will take heavy note of what we say across the Floor of the House. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk concentrated on powers, but he had quite a bit to say on composition. I hope to complement him by saying a little more on composition. He will hear echoes of his speech in what I say, and I hope that I can advance some of his arguments.
Let me dispose of one point immediately by saying that House of Commons reform is relevant to whatever upper House we have ultimately. As other hon. Members have remarked, House of Commons reform is notoriously difficult to bring about. I am pessimistic about it in the shorter term, but optimistic in the longer term. The Modernisation Committee, which is a noble effort to improve matters, does not move with the speed of an Olympic 100 m sprinter, to put it mildly. Reform will take time. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that if we create a reformed upper House, which will inevitably come, it will be a great spur to the House of Commons to speed up its reforms.
In reverse order to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk, I will deal first with composition and then deal with functions and powers.
Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Temple-Morris: I want to make some progress. The hon. Gentleman has made a number of interventions; I will give way later.
I want to state how I see the upper House, and I shall begin with what we do not want. I agree with the right hon. Member for South Norfolk that we do not want an all-elected Chamber. It would inevitably challenge the House of Commons and its method of election could make it almost an embarrassment to this place. There have been suggestions that it should be elected, in whole or in part, under proportional representation. We must bear in mind the electoral system that prevails for this place and which results in its various characteristics, such as, for example, the lack of Conservatives in entire tracts of the country. Under proportional representation, the Conservatives have now become represented again, but there would immediately be a clash. We cannot get round that, even with some fancy system of staggered long terms, because there would still be a claim that they should be more representative at any given moment. Please, no all-elected Chamber.

683
We do not want an all-appointed Chamber. Anyone who looks at matters in a somewhat old-fashioned way might see certain attractions in the power of patronage and appointment. It might be seen as an admirable concept under which there could be a great variety of people. However, the public perception, which is all important, is that it would be cronyism gone mad. It would have no legitimacy; the Canadian Senate is a good example. That goes out.
What do we want? There are some interesting guidelines in the admirable White Paper, which is a fair document. Page 6, paragraph 6 states:
"But the second chamber must have a distinctive role and must neither usurp, nor threaten, the supremacy of the first chamber."
That point was raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. It is important that this Chamber remains supreme.
Page 6, paragraph 9 of the White Paper states:
"The most distinctive and important role of the present House of Lords is the specialist expertise and independent perspective it can bring to the scrutiny of legislation. But the House of Lords and the work it carries out suffer from its lack of legitimacy".
It then goes on to deal with the House of Lords as at present constituted.
We need to strike a balance between the necessary expertise and legitimacy in the eyes of the public. It follows from those guidelines that we need a mixed Chamber, and I believe that, at the end of the debate, many hon. Members will favour that. The difficulty, as hon. Members agree, is to decide on what mix one has.
Let us look at some criteria for a mixed Chamber. It is essential that we should have the necessary expertise and a relatively independent collective attitude. The last thing we want is a copy of this place. We need part-timers with outside interests—they functioned here until comparatively recently. We must institute a system whereby they can continue to function because those whom we want to get in would not be interested in a Chamber that was any different from that. I welcome the White Paper's view that there should be no automatic party majority, which is very much part of the same point.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: The hon. Gentleman says that it is self-evident that the Members should have the necessary expertise. Would he define what he means by "expertise" and tell us how they acquire it?
Mr. Temple-Morris: All will be revealed as my speech continues. That was a helpful intervention, but if I answered the hon. Gentleman now, I would lose the sequence of my speech. I hope that I will have dealt with it in some depth by the end of my speech.
We also need depth of representation to supplement this place. I am already beginning to answer the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) because, however we achieve that depth of representation, we need to deal with aspects such as occupation, region, gender, ethnic origin and so on.
I shall now deal with the mixed Chamber—part appointed and part elected, directly or indirectly.
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman has said that he is moving on to deal with a part-appointed and part-elected
684
Chamber, by which he clearly accepts that part of the Chamber needs to be appointed. Might there be a possibility that the elected Members, who should be the vast majority, co-opt those who are not elected, thereby removing the power of patronage entirely and enhancing the legitimacy of the Chamber?
Mr. Temple-Morris: Much as I respect the interventions that the hon. Gentleman makes on my speeches, my answer is no, no, no. One has only to look at the Irish Senate and the political nature of the electorate there to realise that an admirable system can go wildly wrong. The last thing we want is for those who are elected, by whatever means, to reproduce themselves by way of appointment.
Mr. Grieve rose—
Mr. Temple-Morris: I will not give way again. I have not even answered the hon. Gentleman yet.
It is important that, to a certain extent, the power of patronage, well controlled by way of an independent appointments commission, stays with us in order to get the people we need who would not dream of coming forward under any other form of election.
The proportions within a mixed Chamber have been mentioned. It is important to remain flexible at this stage. On Second Reading, I talked about 70 'per cent. being elected—the vast majority—and 30 per cent. being appointed, or one third being appointed, one third being elected and one third being functional constituencies, or colleges of interest as I called them. I am sorry to distress the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, but now I tend to go for more appointed Members. I would even go up to about 40 per cent. We need flexibility of appointment to get the right people in—I return to the point about expertise and independence of view, and the Cross-Bench element.
The period of appointment is directly relevant to the continuity of the House and its independence. It is a difficult subject which was touched on by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk. Particularly if we want younger people in, we have to consider the possibility of reappointment, but that limits independence. I have thought about the matter as, no doubt, have others, but, at the end of the day, rather than any particular term, appointment should be for life or the age of 75. We hope that all the Members have a happy and healthy retirement. I see that element of appointment as the foundation or the permanent feature of the new House of Lords.
I now turn to the elected part of the upper House. Touching again on a point raised by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk, direct election, whether it is regional or anything else, would produce the dreadful danger of party hacks. The upper Chamber would become a second division and, like the Irish Senate, to use an example that I know very well, in some ways it would be a waiting room for those who wanted to get down to this end of the building. In my view, direct elections should be avoided at all costs.
That leaves us with indirect elections, which need to avoid a political electorate. I referred briefly to that in reply to an intervention. The Irish Senate operates by way of functional constituencies. It is lovely on paper and it could work very well. Sometimes the system is criticised without the realisation that it is not the system, but the

685
electorate that is wrong. The electorate comprises the Members of the Dail and members of Irish local authorities, who form one of the most highly political electorates in the country, and the same would apply here.
There is nothing wrong with functional constituencies provided that we get the electorate right. In regard to the electorate, the answer is quite simple: they should elect themselves. The indirect system of election involves colleges of interest or functional constituencies. They could include representatives of the main areas of activity, such as business, the professions, trade unions and so on. The European Parliament could be a functional constituency, not in terms of electing its own Members, but it could elect a representative. The devolved Parliament and Assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could also be involved.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for South Norfolk that when Members of the European Parliament were first elected in 1974, many hon. Members standing said that there could be a dual mandate. If I remember rightly, after the first European election in 1979, only one solitary MEP remained a Member of Parliament after 1984.
Mr. Grieve: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. In the spirit of the debate, which is more a discussion, is there not a difficulty with the system of colleges of election? The Irish one began in the 1930s. Is it not the truth that it derived from a fascist form of government? I do not mean that pejoratively, but that was its origin: the idea of an estate of the realm made up of corporations. Is not the problem that the system typecasts people into categories, whereas all the evidence is that today's society is very fluid and that people are not typecast in that fashion?
Mr. Temple-Morris: I do not think that bringing fascism into the debate is particularly helpful. I do not find the Republic of Ireland a particularly fascist state. Having dealt with that rather extreme part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I should say that the election should be conducted democratically. There is no earthly reason why it should not be—I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the Bar Council, for example, would be perfectly capable of putting people up to go to the upper House and electing such people at its annual meeting. Any professional, business or equivalent body in the country would have no difficulty in doing that. Such an election is a way to get in people in a representative capacity other than by appointing them by power of patronage, from wherever it comes. In addition, it would provide the opportunity for indirect election from regional councils in order to get regional representatives.
With regard to period of office, I do not think that there is anything wrong with having two different types of Members of the upper House. Appointed Members should be for life or until the age of 75. It is a matter for discussion, but a fair term of office for those indirectly elected by way of functional constituencies would be for the duration of a Parliament. Indeed, many of those representing such constituencies may not want to do so permanently; they may want to do a spell in Parliament.
Finally, I wish to make a few specific points about functions and powers. First, the Law Lords have been mentioned. As I said on Second Reading, I do not
686
believe that the Law Lords belong to the legislature. Their presence is almost an accident of history; at one point, no one else had the skill to try such significant cases. They could quite easily continue as a supreme court of appeal, sitting in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as they do today on certain matters. However, that is no bar to senior judges being nominated to the House of Lords. Inevitably, many of them will be and, no doubt, there will be plenty of lawyers in that Chamber.
Secondly, I know that there are constitutional complications in respect of the bishops, but I do not think that they belong in a modern legislature. That problem needs to be addressed. In some cases, they could be nominated. Indeed, the Churches could be functional constituencies. As a member of the Church of England, let me make the point that we need representatives of more Churches and faiths than just the Church of England by constitutional right.
Thirdly, the position of Ministers crept in by way of an intervention. I see no reason why Ministers need to be Members of the House of Lords. The concept of having Government spokesmen, as occurs in most other Parliaments of the democratic world, could easily apply to the Lords. Ministers should be firmly in the House of Commons. There seems to me no earthly reason why Ministers could not, where necessary, have a right of audience in the House of Lords. That occurs in many other democratic Parliaments.
The upper House should seriously consider allowing rights of audience or outside participation. The right way to deal with our devolved Parliaments and Assemblies is not to appoint their representatives there, although they may be colleges of interest, but to allow First Ministers, and so on, a right of audience in the upper House, if they so wish, in respect of crucial legislation. That occurs not only in the European Parliament, but in other Parliaments.
Finally, I wish to make an important general point with regard to powers. We have to get it right as it is a serious matter. While we want a vigorous and strong House of Lords which must play its part in controlling the Executive, we should be under no illusion; whatever powers we give Members of the upper House at the end of the process will be used. I emphasise that. There will not be any of the present deference or standing back; almost by definition, the new upper House will use whatever clout we give it. Therefore, the House must take the matter seriously, and I welcome the careful process that the Government have set in train by appointing the royal commission, which shows every promise of producing a good and constructive report, and then involving the Joint Committee and both Houses of Parliament. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, the process will take some time. I have no doubt from the debate thus far that we are taking it seriously. It is an important process that will improve our governance for the future.
5.50 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said that this was one of those occasions when the House of Commons tended to make speeches rather than listen to them. I congratulate him on sitting throughout the debate with evident interest.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is here, because I want to address an issue of great importance, which he raised. He had a somewhat world-weary view about the

687
prospect of reform of the upper House, based on his 30 years in this House, and one could have a degree of sympathy with that. However, he showed a perhaps surprising radicalism in his belief that the Liaison Committee might succeed in creating a new career track for Members of the House of Commons, which would so transform the work of this place that it might become a significant check on the Executive in a different manner from that which it has exercised during our time here.
One can exaggerate the extent to which there has been a falling off from a golden age of the House of Commons, which has been exceedingly partisan in the past and not just within the memory of those sitting here today. Historically—on issues such as the reform of the House of Lords during the first decade of this century, home rule for Ireland and many other matters—the House of Commons has shown itself to be a partisan place; perhaps that is its function.
As people are anxious to preserve the authority and distinctiveness of the House of Commons as the fount of Executive Government, it would seem likely that that will remain. Our approach to the reform of the House of Lords should take into account the probability that the House of Commons will remain similar to its present form. Whatever may be the developments in the Liaison Committee—about which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne spoke-I hope that they will be progressed. The House of Lords has the potential to become more effective in the discharge of a different role from its present one.
For that reason, I was glad to hear the Leader of the House say that the royal commission should focus on that role, and should approach the matter fundamentally and—she did not use this word, although she clearly intended it—radically. That is an entirely desirable approach. That caution should prevent the royal commission from being lost in the deltoid sands at the outturn of a river—something that would occur if it waited to see how this House reforms its procedure to make it more effective.
The Leader of the House reflected the approach of the Prime Minister, before he became Prime Minister, in his John Smith speech in 1996, when he said that the Labour party had always favoured an elected upper House. That message would not be appropriate for the Government to enunciate in terms today. Having set up a royal commission, it would be wrong to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and tell the royal commission what it should do, for the reasons given so effectively by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). None the less, the royal commission will have in mind the fact that the clear view, as stated by the Prime Minister, that the Labour party has always favoured an elected second Chamber.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) produced a kind of consensus, but I hope profoundly that that consensus does not inform the thinking of the royal commission. I could not have disagreed more with the view of the hon. Member for Leominster that it makes sense to go towards a system of election from functional constituencies. For the sake of avoiding academic discussion, I will not address the issue of whether the idea has fascist roots or not. However, it is clear that it is an impractical suggestion.
688
The hon. Member for Leominster spoke about the sense of giving a member of the Bar Council a position in the House of Lords as of right—but why? I am a barrister, but I cannot see why the legal profession—if that is what the hon. Gentleman is proposing-should be represented by somebody from the Bar. Why not somebody from the Law Society, or from the magistrates' clerks?
Mr. Temple-Morris: Why not?
Mr. Maclennan: Why not indeed? We could have six, seven, eight, 10 or a dozen people with some claim from a functional constituency to represent the law in its workings, and that could be true of every other profession. In terms of the medical profession, is it to be the president of the Royal College of Surgeons or the president of the Royal College of Anaesthetists? Are we to get the entire medical profession together? Are we to have the patients, as a functional constituency, electing someone to represent them in the upper House? Tourism is a huge industry, and represents tremendously important earnings capacity in this country. Who is to speak for it?
Mr. Hogg: I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Is there not an added vice, to which he may shortly come—that the members chosen by some functional college would regard themselves in some way as delegates of that functional college, and would not approach matters in the broader way that I hope that Members of the second Chamber would adopt?
Mr. Maclennan: I entirely agree. Not only would there be a problem with the latitudinarianism of those who would claim to be the spokespersons for a sector of opinion, but there would be the problem of their becoming out of date. How long can they go on claiming to speak for that functional constituency? The issue has been too easily used as a kind of halfway house towards the election of the upper House.
I think that it is an evasion—an evasion of an issue that was put directly by a previous Conservative commission, led by Sir Alec Douglas-Home in 1978, on the composition of the upper House. That report completely refuted the speech of the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), a former Leader of the House, in terms. It stated:
"Moral authority can only come from the direct election of its Members."
There is the point. We have not heard enough in the debate about the virtues of democracy.
The Leader of the House talked about the importance of legitimacy, and that is a function of democracy. However, if the new, reformed House is to speak with authority, it must draw its legitimacy from direct elections. If it is not to be a reflection of this House—there is some consensus on that, although not on how that is to be achieved—I would suggest, praying in aid the Douglas-Home commission, that it must be elected in a different manner from the House of Commons.
Douglas-Home was not squeamish about urging a proportional system; nor would I be about advocating the single transferable vote for such elections, as it would ensure the probability that not only would no single party dominate that House but that its Members would represent substantially different constituencies, drawn from a much

689
wider geographical base. If the experience of other countries with the single transferable vote is any guide, it would also bring in that very mix of people that it is our common wish to see elected.
Mr. Letwin: I am puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's remarks because I understood his party to favour that system for this House. How would its introduction in the second Chamber differentiate it from the first if his desires for the first were also achieved?
Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman is running a little behind, which is surprising from him, as he is one of the most acute members of the Conservative Front Bench. The Liberal Democrats happily welcomed the Jenkins report's recommendation of alternative vote plus for this House, which would build on existing parliamentary constituencies—that is its virtue—but that is something entirely different from what is being advocated for the upper House. We are observing the rubric of the Douglas-Home commission, which seems to make eminently good sense.
Mr. Temple-Morris: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am a supporter of electoral reform, but does he seriously think that the House would create an upper House that could in many ways be argued to be more representative than this place? Does he honestly think that that is on, or practical?
Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that the single transferable vote is an eminently democratic system of election, but I would not for a minute suggest that it is more democratic than the proposal of the Jenkins commission, which will be the subject of a referendum. That is how the matter should be decided, and how the Government have undertaken that it will be decided. I do not doubt that the House can live with a touch of democracy, if that is what he is inferring that it might not be prepared to accept.
Most of today's speeches have, rightly, focused on what is the point of the upper House, what it should do that it is not doing and whether it needs more powers to do it effectively. It is fair to say that the House of Lords has many powers that it feels constrained from using because it lacks legitimacy. I do not set my face against change, and there are several areas in which I think that it would be desirable—for example, involving the upper House, as has been suggested by many of its Members, in greater scrutiny of treaty making, and giving it more of a role in scrutinising secondary legislation—but the real inhibition on the effectiveness of the upper House concerns not its powers but the sense that, if it were to seek to face down the Government, its wings would be clipped.
That is why I asked the right hon. Member for South Norfolk the question, which he did not answer, whether there were occasions on which he would now, with the benefit of hindsight, say that it would have been a good thing if the Government of which he was a distinguished member for a long time had been faced down by a reformed second Chamber. He has not said so, so we must take it that it is his view that the present balance of power between the Executive and the legislature, in its
690
manifestation in the House of Lords, is about right. That is why he did not advocate anything more fundamental or radical than he did.
Mr. MacGregor: I should have thought that the four areas that I listed showed where I thought that the upper Chamber, and to some extent this House, was deficient in its scrutiny of the Executive.
Mr. Maclennan: I acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has argued that there are deficiencies, but he has not said how he would give the upper House the authority to deal with them effectively. By espousing the minimalist changes that he has recommended, he fortifies the belief that he is broadly content with the current balance of power between the Executive and the legislature.
Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is asking, fairly, whether those who have been in government can identify measures that we think that the upper House should have rejected. I most certainly can: for example, the ability that we instituted to try people for war crimes committed during the second world war; that was wrong in principle and I wish that the second Chamber had voted it down. As a rather more dramatic example, with hindsight, the community charge was a disaster and I very much wish that the other place had voted that down, too.
Mr. Maclennan: Not for the first time, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has shown himself to be more robust and outspoken than some of his colleagues, but his example of the war crimes legislation was a rather surprising one, because it was an occasion on which the upper House did indeed vote down the Government, although it was not of course able to carry its way because, ultimately, the Parliament Act was invoked.
We have not had a debate about the Parliament Act and whether it should be more widely open to the House of Lords to have the last word. If the pre-eminence of the House of Commons in our polity flows from anything, it is first from the fact that it is the bed from which Ministers are plucked, and secondly from the fact that we have the last word on legislation, save in the extraordinary case, referred to specifically by the Leader of the House, of the possibility of extending the life of a Parliament beyond five years.
There are other matters over which it might be reasonable to consider that the House of Lords should be able to exercise such a power. The essence of the power that it has is in respect of major constitutional change, and that principle might be embraced for issues such as any suggestion of tampering with the Representation of the People Acts and the provisions for secret voting.
Mr. Grieve: I earlier said that I did not consider the Irish model a particularly good one, but may I extol one virtue of it—the possibility of a conflict on a constitutional issue being the trigger for a referendum?
Mr. Maclennan: That is an entirely sensible suggestion, and I would be happy to endorse it.
On constitutional matters, because of the dominance of this Chamber by the Government, which I believe to be virtually inevitable, it is valuable to have another

691
Chamber with a checking power. It should not be a power to stand in the way for all time if there is consensus for reform, but if there is doubt about that consensus—about the view of the public—it would seem appropriate to give the House of Lords the ability to block legislation. For example, it would have been appropriate to block the winding up of the government of London without the calling of a referendum of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
The composition of the second Chamber should embrace the principle of democratic legitimacy. The argument deployed against that by the proponents of a partially, or even predominantly, appointed upper House is that the great virtue of the House of Lords as it stands is its expertise.
It is true that there are people of quality of mind and of experience—business experience, and so forth. I do not deny that we have been able to enjoy contributions of great merit and moment from such people in the past. I think they have probably given the raft, or the afflatus of oxygen, that has kept the place alive, but I feel less certain whether we should look to that as the crucial test in the future. That is partly because of the difficulties associated with functional constituencies, which will spill over however we decide to appoint, rather than to elect, the Members.
If we are to appoint people of experience, how do we choose them? That is made no easier by removing the political element from the choice and putting the function at arm's length from the Government by setting up an appointments commission, itself perhaps appointed by the Government. There is still a real problem of choice. The wisest people in the world, choosing among the wisest people available, would still not be able to satisfy us that those people were, by virtue of their expertise, more legitimate than many who were not appointed. That is an impossibilist course to advocate.
It makes sense for people to put their trust in democracy. If the upper House is drawn from a different base, and elected by a different franchise and method of election, and if it has clearly demarcated functions, it will attract a different kind of person.

I have heard the arguments across the Chamber about whether there should be Ministers in the upper House. Personally, I think that there are powerful arguments against their being there. If there were no Ministers in the upper House, that would remove at a stroke people who desire to be involved in the career patronage there, which is a pale reflection of what happens in this House but still to some extent colours that House's proceedings. That is a meritorious argument, worthy of consideration.
If the avenue of the revitalised upper House is not the primary route to ministerial office, that House will in any event have a different flavour and function, and could attract different people. It might prove attractive to public spirited people who have made their mark in other walks of life, and who wish to give some direct public service at a later stage, perhaps, than the younger professional full-time politicians who, it has been suggested, now
692
dominate our debates, although to me that charge seems a slight exaggeration. That would certainly be a different sort of upper House, and that is where I would put my trust.
I hope that, in considering the functions and the reform of the upper House, Lord Wakeham and his colleagues will not be too sensitive about the possibility of the House of Commons bolting because of its fear of what a revitalised upper House might do. It would be a discreditable stance for this House to say that the legitimacy of the other House should, in perpetuity—or even as far ahead as we can see—remain tarnished by other than democratic principles. To put it more simply, the upper House should become as democratically legitimate as this House.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech, but how, in his directly elected upper House, would he ensure that those who do not belong to a party would have the opportunity of being elected? How could he ensure that elections would not be conducted on party lines? If he could not, he could not guarantee the presence of any independents.
Mr. Maclennan: That problem has exercised me; that is why I have retained a residual commitment to an element involving appointed Members. There is a case—perhaps not a very strong one—for such an element, to accommodate just such people. That has always—or at least, for the past decade or so—been my party's position, and I see the point of it.
When we consider the performance of the upper House today, we see that one can exaggerate the significance of that independent element, as it now exists, in shaping policy and reactions to the Government. The participation rates of the so-called independents and Cross Benchers, both in votes and in other ways, are substantially lower than those of the partisan Members who accept a Whip. We also have to weigh in the balance the concern that the more one increases the independent Cross-Bench element, the more one decreases the right of the House to be listened to on equal terms with this House as an expression of genuine democratic opinion.
Mr. Grieve: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the question that I asked the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), about co-option? Surely there would be more legitimacy if the Members who had been elected, by whatever means, were required to co-opt a certain percentage of Members of the upper House to deliberate with them. That would introduce the independent element that is so desirable.
Mr. Maclennan: It is asking too much, even of altruism, to expect people to co-opt independents. Even in the sort of House that I am talking about, I cannot imagine that the Whips would play no part.
Mr. Grieve: Suppose that we had a system in which co-option was done by two-thirds majority voting, with the aim of ensuring that independent Members were brought in. That might work quite well, and we would be mistaken to ignore the possibility.
Mr. Maclennan: I ignore nothing, and I shall certainly explore that idea—but I tend to think that if partisanship

693
were not the quality sought by those doing the co-opting, clubability might replace it, and I am not sure that that would be any better.
On the other hand, it is right to emphasise to the Wakeham commission our overriding desire that the main defects of the upper House should be removed. Despite its expertise, the quality of its best debates, and the assiduity of its tireless Members, who sit through the night and sometimes long into the summer, the importance of the House of Lords is diminishing in our scheme of things, because it is not democratic. There is no way of reversing that by tinkering. Either we accept the need for democracy in that Chamber or we shall have to start thinking in terms of unicameralism and other ways of bringing the Executive to task, for we cannot look to that House in its present form to do that.
I do not think that this House can, or should, behave very differently from the way that it behaves already. That is not a matter of complacency. I have found its ways so unappealing at times that I have even been forced to change my political party, so I do not make that remark lightly. However, in reality, a House that is the avenue to Executive office will always be one in which the Government have great and overwhelming influence, except when an accident of electoral fate results in a narrow majority.
That being so, we would do well to use this great opportunity to reform the House of Lords that the Government are giving us to see whether we can include more checks and balance in our system, and build in greater balance between the Executive and the legislature. That is certainly long overdue.
6.20 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), especially as I agree with so much of what he said. Indeed, many elements of the debate appear to be agreed by hon. Members from all parts of the House. There seems to be agreement that we should have a reformed and modern second Chamber, that it should be independent, representative, distinctive and non-competitive—that is, that the second Chamber should complement rather than challenge this Chamber's authority and primacy.
However, I said that hon. Members appear to agree on those points, because I suspect that those characteristics mean different things to different people. For example, there is the question of independence. I suspect that the deputy shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—and the Leader of the House in her opening remarks—used the word "independence" to mean "of no party". To me, and I sense to many others, it is much more interesting and important that independence should refer to independence of government.
That is hard to achieve, because the power of government in both Chambers, as exercised by the Whips and as described many hon. Members in this debate, is reinforced by the understandable ambitions of people—in this House and in the other place, and regardless of whether they are in opposition—to achieve government. Therefore, the only way to ensure true independence for
694
a second Chamber is to remove the Government from it, and to make it a House of parliamentarians, in which parliamentary scrutiny is an end in itself.
I was interested that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire implied that that would not be attractive to people. I agree with the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and believe that it would be attractive. It is an important and fascinating role, and the enthusiasm and skill with which Select Committees in both Houses fulfil it shows how important and satisfying it could be.
There is general agreement that the power of the Executive has grown under all Governments, both in general and in particular. Reference has been made to the enormous growth over recent Parliaments in the numbers of statutory instruments, and to the fact that they cannot be amended. I disagree with those who seem to criticise the House of Commons, at least by implication, for not doing a decent job in holding the Government to account. Faced with Governments and Executives, of both parties, who have skilfully and successfully found it to be an imperative of government in a difficult and complex state to take more power to themselves, the House of Commons does its scrutiny work well. That is evident in the work of the Select Committees and, often, in debate.
It is regrettable that Question Times have become almost a farce. Their style is reminiscent of Japanese Noh theatre, with the Minister knowing what the question will be and hon. Members knowing what the answer will be. They are of little democratic interest and are not effective in holding the Government to account, but in other respects the House of Commons does a good job. However, a second Chamber, especially one freed from the Executive and with scrutiny as its prime role, could and would perform differently. In doing so, it would augment the quality of our Parliament, and vary the type of scrutiny to which the Executive are subjected.
There is also the question of representation. It is right that a second Chamber must be representative, but representative of whom, and accountable to whom? If the second Chamber is appointed, it can be representative only of the will of the person, or of the commission of selection, who appointed it. However much the Prime Minister wants to place that commission at arm's length—a laudable aim—it will be appointed by government and inevitably will be made up of the great and the good. It is their stamp, therefore, that will be on that Chamber.
Most crucially, not only will the Chamber not be representative of anyone but the commission, but it will not be accountable to anyone. That idea is ridiculous and an affront.
Mr. Hogg: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument and broadly agree. However, is not the criticism of an appointed Chamber ultimately that it lacks political legitimacy? In the world in which we live, the only legitimacy that stands scrutiny is that which stems from election.
Mr. Fisher: The right hon. and learned Gentleman anticipates my next point: a Chamber that is neither representative nor accountable has no roots in our nation, and so has no democratic legitimacy. I strongly believe in a Chamber that is democratically elected and accountable to people. That is how we all came to be here, and it is

695
therefore the source of the legitimacy of half of Parliament. The task, as we enter a new century, is to determine how to finish democracy's job and extend that democratic accountability beyond this Chamber to the whole of Parliament.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of clarification, is it implicit in the hon. Gentleman's remarks that the Head of State should also be elected?
Mr. Fisher: Certainly not: we are talking about our Parliament, all of which I believe should be accountable to the people of this country. At present, people are denied any say in half of our Parliament. In all the debates, media articles and speculation on the subject—which the Government and the royal commission have rightly stimulated by at long last facing up to the problem—we have heard little about the rights of the people.
That is true, too, about this evening's debate. Much has been heard about the theoretical virtues of different bases of representation and composition, but where do people fit in? There is a distaste for, or a lack of interest in, what people in this country are being denied that I find extraordinary. Surely the right to vote for the people who will determine and scrutinise legislation is at the core of our democracy. We have just created Parliaments for Scotland and for Wales, and there is one in Northern Ireland. We are reforming local authorities and tomorrow we will elect people to represent us at the European Parliament.
It would be outrageous if, in forming the new Parliaments and renewing our representation in the forums that already exist, we said that part of the representation in those forums should be by appointment. No one has suggested that that should happen by appointment. No one has suggested that it would be better if the Parliament in Scotland had been partly appointed, or indirectly elected through the Scottish local authorities. People in Scotland wanted a voice in their Parliament, and I believe that the people of the wider United Kingdom have a right to a say over everyone who sits in their legislature.
Mr. Forth: I agree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but does he accept that we have agreed to a unicameral legislature in Scotland, which not many people would contemplate for the UK as a whole? Is that not a paradox?
Mr. Fisher: It may be so, but a Parliament such as Scotland's, which contains a comparatively small number of Members, would find it difficult to define two distinct roles. The right hon. Gentleman asks an open and interesting question, but, given that we have a complicated United Kingdom Parliament augmented by separate Parliaments in Scotland and Wales, the people of Scotland made the right decision.
We have tried appointed systems in the past. Our first Members of the European Parliament were appointed from this Chamber, not elected. We were right to abandon that system, saying that the people had the right to say directly who should represent them in the European Parliament. We were right, too, to get rid of the aldermanic system. There used to be functional constituencies in the universities and we were right to get rid of those.
696
The history of our democracy has been of a slow clawing back from the Executive—first, the monarch, then the lords and the aristocracy—the right of the people to have a say. We completed that process only in this century when, between the wars and at long last, women got the vote. Universal democracy is a recent innovation, but we have never had it in full. It has applied to only half of our legislature. We have an opportunity to say that everyone who discusses legislation and affairs of state should be elected. Anything less is unacceptable.
I respect my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), who clearly disagrees with me. He and others will have to tell their constituents that we are modernising the House of Lords, but that they should have no say in who should sit in it. They will have to tell their constituents that the choice should be made for them and that someone should appoint those who sit in it. Can any hon. Member on either side of the House seriously look his or her constituents in the eye and tell them that they are not sufficiently wise or competent to decide who should sit in the second Chamber during the next century?
Sir Patrick Cormack: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a real affection, that is precisely what his Government will make people do tomorrow. No one will be directly elected. No voter in any constituency will vote for an individual.
Mr. Fisher: I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was not happy with the closed-list system and I do not like being unable to distinguish between individual representatives. Some representatives of each party do a good job, and others do not. People in our towns and cities know very well who the competent people are, but they will not be able tomorrow to ensure that the competent return to Brussels while the incompetent return whence they came.
We need to establish that people have the right to a say. The Government are fond of the expression "the many, not the few". It is becoming a mantra, and I would willingly never hear it again.
Mr. Forth: How about "the third way"?
Mr. Fisher: I do not disagree with the spirit of the expression, merely with the way in which it trips off the tongue, sucked of almost all meaning. The principle is correct, of course, but it is ironic that a Government for whom the many, not the few is a mantra should appear so uncertain about giving the many—the democracy—the right to vote rather than giving it to the few, or the oligarchy.
If we have an appointed or even an indirectly elected second Chamber, we shall turn away from democracy, which is government by the people, to oligarchy, which is government by the select few. Will we really enter the 21st century by modernising our second Chamber so that we have an oligarchy? Is that the way to express our country's needs? It is absurd. We are a democratic people and we have fought hard for centuries to try to extend democracy. Thanks to the Government, it is at long last within our grasp, but we seem uncertain about whether we wish to grasp the opportunity.
The most compelling argument against an elected second Chamber made tonight and by the Government has been that the authority conferred by elections to both

697
would create gridlock, threatening the primacy of the Commons and undermining the clarity of government. The authority of government resides in this Chamber, and it is here that the Government are rightly held to account. I do not accept that argument. That need not happen as long as the rules and the functions of the two Chambers are distinct.
Over several decades, we have made the mistake of establishing primacy in this Chamber by the illegitimacy of the membership of the other Chamber. Except for a few diehards who love the hereditary principle, the other place is cautious about exercising its many and considerable powers because the world and the Members of the other place know that it is illegitimate. We have been content that that has been so because it has established our authority, but our primacy should not rely on a broken-backed composition of the other Chamber. It should depend on clarity in the roles and functions of the two Chambers. The way in which to establish that clarity is by enacting a new Parliament Act.
Mr. Tyrie: The existence of the Parliament Acts is the reason why gridlock would be unlikely. They give supremacy to this House and, in the event of a clash, the Commons can always win by exercising the Acts. Only once has there been gridlock in the modern history of the two Houses, and that arose over the definition of the rules of the Parliament Acts themselves.
Mr. Fisher: Some people would say that we have come close to gridlock in recent weeks. I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said—and has written extremely well—about the House of Lords, but the Parliament Acts are deficient in some key respects. If we are to establish clear and distinct roles for the two Chambers, which must be the aim of any reform, we need a new Parliament Act that will recognise and enshrine the primacy of the Commons and legislate on areas currently covered by the Salisbury convention.
The growth of that convention since 1945 is the reason why the Parliament Acts are unsatisfactory. It is wrong to distinguish between the two Chambers by convention alone. It would be clearer and simpler to have their roles detailed in primary legislation that would maintain for the second Chamber the power to amend and delay—though possibly for a shorter period—and that would extend that Chamber's powers to secondary and European legislation. A new Act should remove some of the inflexibility of the present Acts with regard to unamended Bills, and it should extend to House of Lords Bills and delegated legislation. It should also provide procedures for mediation. Of course, if the Government were removed from that Chamber, its power to initiate legislation would have to be removed.
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is making a well-reasoned and powerful speech. Does he agree that if the Lords were elected for fixed terms with rotational election so that a certain proportion were up for election at any given time, the chance of a clash would be minimised because its role would be seen as wholly distinct from that of this Chamber, whose mandate is renewed when the Government go to the country?
Mr. Fisher: Yes, but it would be essential that the Chambers were not elected at the same time, to emphasise
698
the distinction between the two. However, that is less important than having very different functions in relation to the Executive. The most encouraging element of this debate has been the agreement among hon. Members on both sides of the House on removing the Executive from the second Chamber. That would at a stroke transform its nature, improving it radically. It would also enormously improve this Chamber and scrutiny of the Executive.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I was surprised when the Leader of the House said that we were considering only reform of the House of Lords. The two Chambers are interdependent and their reform must be considered together. We are talking about one Parliament and how the two Chambers can work together to represent the views of our people and ensure that we are well governed. What happens in the upper Chamber affects what happens here.
I believe that such changes would recreate a modern, independent, representative, accountable, non-competitive second Chamber of which we could be proud and which this Chamber need not fear. We would benefit from its intelligence, wisdom and scrutiny, while this Chamber would continue to be the locus of government and therefore the source of power of the Executive. Those objectives depend on a democratic route to giving our people a voice that I believe to be long overdue. I hope that it will soon come to pass.
6.42 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), with whom I have had a long friendship going back to the earliest times. I regret that he is no longer a Front Bencher.
Sir Patrick Cormack: He would have made a different speech if he were.
Mr. Hogg: That may be true, but I am sure that he would be urging his case as strongly within the Government. The House is the poorer for his no longer being a Front Bencher.
I do not know whether it is strictly necessary but to avoid possible criticism I declare a personal interest in that my wife and father sit in the other Chamber and I stand to inherit a hereditary peerage. I hasten to add that I have always intended to remain in this House if my constituents are willing to make it possible.
Perhaps partly because of my background but also because of a long-standing interest in historical matters and the constitution, I have always been interested in reform of the House of Lords. I have long held first, that we should substantially increase the powers of the second Chamber and secondly, that we should therefore confer proper political legitimacy on it. That goes back to the points made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. The only legitimacy that exists in Britain today stems from direct election. I shall explain in more detail later, but I therefore conclude that the second Chamber should have substantially increased powers and be largely—or as I would prefer, wholly—elected.
Discussion of the composition of the second Chamber must begin by focusing on powers and functions. The Government's approach has been criticised because it deals with composition separately from functions and

699
purpose. We cannot consider functions without also considering how this House performs its function of holding the Government to proper account. If this House is discharging its functions well, we need to make relatively little change to the powers of the second Chamber; it is only if this House is not exercising its functions well that we need substantially to enhance them. If we are content to leave the second Chamber with its powers largely as they are now—this is not my position—I would argue that there is no real case for changing its composition either.
In fact, there is an argument for the present composition of the second Chamber. There are advantages in a mixed system of hereditary and appointed peers. Most obviously, there is a measure of independence to be found among the hereditary peerage that should be acknowledged by this House. We must also acknowledge that appointment does not by itself confer any more obvious legitimacy than the hereditary principle, but it does confer on the Government very extensive powers of patronage that I regard as undesirable. However, I do not have to defend the status quo on composition because I want the second Chamber's powers to be greatly enhanced.
I have come to this view—to be fair to myself, I held it as a Minister over 13 years—because I do not believe that this House will or can properly hold a Government and Executive to account. It is not just a lack of will, but an inherent inability that stems from the constitutional settlement that has existed for very many years. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was right about that.
We do not have a separation of powers. From that, it follows that the Executive are in this Chamber. Provided that the Executive can control their own party, they can do as they please, subject to relatively few external constraints. There are some, which I shall mention shortly but only touch on now. The European Union has a measure of control, as does the European convention on human rights. Subject to those, the Executive who control their own party can do what they please. That is inherent in the constitution. Of course, the problem is aggravated by a Government with a very large majority as we have now, but we have had a Conservative Government with a very large majority. It is further aggravated—this is probably the only party political point that I shall make—if we have a Prime Minister and Ministers who have a highly developed contempt for this House.
In substance, the problem has nothing to do with the Labour party, but is inherent in the constitutional settlement that has been in place for decades. It stems from the fact that there is no separation of powers. In that respect, I have always held that the American model was infinitely preferable. However, I am not foolish enough to suppose that we shall ever bring it about—at least not in my lifetime, and probably not in the lifetime of my children or my grandchildren.
An Opposition Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), is sitting in front of me, so I am sorry to have to say that the very tight control that parties exercise over their Back Benchers undermines democracy.
700
I thought so when I was a Conservative Government Whip, although, having taken the Queen's salt, I performed my functions with enthusiasm.
Sir Patrick Cormack: My right hon. and learned Friend was dreadful.
Mr. Hogg: As my hon. Friend says, I was dreadful. I was certainly a vigorous Whip, but I acted disapproving of myself. Furthermore, if I may say so, I did not necessarily have a high regard for those of my colleagues to whom I gave instruction. The tight control that the Whips exercise over their parties positively diminishes the reputation of this place and indeed our ability to control the Executive.
Mr. Letwin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the fault lies mainly not with the people who are doing the whipping, but with the recipients, in that the system does not provide for the recipients to resist the whipping by giving them an alternative career course?
Mr. Hogg: I remember articulating the same argument back in 1979 when the noble Lord St. John of Fawsley—or Mr. St. John-Stevas as he was then—introduced the Select Committee system. At that time, we articulated the argument that Back Benchers would have an independent career structure that would make them readier to resist the power of the Whip. I do not believe that that has really worked. As long as the Executive are Members of this place, the ambitions, fears and inhibitions of right hon. and hon. Members will always dilute their ability to speak their own mind and to do what they would do if they were to follow their consciences.
Mr. Rowe: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a powerful and interesting point. Does he agree that there has been an enormous escalation in the practice of the popular media highlighting "disloyalty" when people stand up for their principles, and that that is a nonsensical undermining of democracy?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Of course, that gives the party Whip—although I make no personal observations about my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle—
Mr. Stephen Day: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Hogg: The party Whips have another instrument with which to chastise and coerce their Back Benchers. They can tell Back Benchers, "You will be portrayed as dividing this great, united party of ours", so my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is right.
Mr. Fisher: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's critique, but he seeks to place all the blame on the Government. Does he not feel that this Chamber shares some of the blame? It is perfectly within the powers of this Chamber to insist, by a vote, that it should elect members of Select Committees, rather than leaving that power to the Whips. Much of the power that has been

701
removed from this Chamber to the Executive has been with its agreement—or, at least, with its nodding and tacit consent.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is correct. If this House wanted to exercise its powers, it would be a truly sovereign and democratic institution. However, for a variety of reasons—some of which I have tried to identify—this House does not choose to employ the powers that we, as Members, could exercise if we were to vote according to our individual beliefs.
The point that I have been trying to make is that those defects are not merely theoretical; they are real and they distort the way in which business is carried out. I will give two examples from the Labour Government's period in office and, to be fair, will cite two examples from the previous Conservative Government's time in office. In relation to the Labour Government, if the House had voted in accordance with its actual wishes, rather than those of the Whips, the Government would not have put through a substantial portion of their welfare legislation. To take the other example—in respect of which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate—we should not have passed the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 with the possibility of the closed list system. Those measures would not have been passed.
During the period that the Conservative Government were in office, I do not believe that the legislation relating to the Maastricht treaty would have been approved by this House—certainly not without a referendum clause—had the House spoken in accordance with its wishes. Furthermore, the community charge legislation would not have passed if the House had spoken according to its wishes. We should acknowledge those facts.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have anticipated my question and I shall be interested to hear his answer. Would not that strict party control exercised by the Whips be a feature of an elected second Chamber, even one that did not have an Executive element, bearing in mind the fact that the need for enforcing party discipline and unity would still be an argument that could be deployed?
Mr. Hogg: I shall develop that point later, but will give a brief answer now. There might be a degree of such control, but, because there would not be the same scope for ambition, the influence that the Whips could exercise in an elected second Chamber would be much less.
I have focused on the big issues, but we need to keep in mind that this defect also extends to the small issues—the detail of Bills. The grip that the Whips maintain on their parties is as great in Committee as it is in the Chamber. What happens in Committee in relation to the detail of legislation is frequently as important as what happens during the major debates on policy or on Second Reading.
To develop that point further, we need to understand that there is nothing in our constitution that guarantees minority rights. Provided that the Government of the day retain their control over members of their parliamentary party, they can do much as they please. Minority rights
702
are not entrenched under our system—although they are entrenched in many other systems—and I regard that as a serious defect in the way in which we conduct our affairs.
Mr. Grieve: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if anything, minority rights are threatened even more nowadays, because of the growth of the belief that when the people have spoken through the mandate of an election, any opposition to that expressed wish becomes improper in some way?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, about which I make two comments. First, I have always regarded the manifesto doctrine as complete rubbish. The fact that detailed policy propositions may be set out in a manifesto does not give the Government a blank cheque to carry out those policies. Truth to tell, only a tiny proportion of Members of Parliament will read their party's manifesto—far less the electorate as a whole. The manifesto doctrine is rubbish.
Secondly, I believe that minorities have rights that they are entitled to assert even against majorities. All Governments and Members of this House should realise that they have a limited right to effect change.
Mr. Edward Garnier: I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend for interrupting him. He mentioned his views on the principle behind the manifesto doctrine. Might not the same be said for the votes taken in this House at 10 o'clock? A huge proportion of Members do not listen to the debates, but simply go into the Lobby to which they are directed. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is at least a possibility—although it is no more than that—that the Human Rights Act 1998 may entrench the rights of minorities in a way that has not previously been the case?
Mr. Hogg: I was just coming to the second proposition that my hon. and learned Friend makes, but his first reinforces my basic point, which is that the House of Commons is not an effective defender of rights, and nor does it provide an effective method of holding Governments to account. Let us not get personal—we should all admit to flocking in at 10 o'clock and asking a Whip which way we should vote, even though that is not a proper way in which to discharge our functions.
I said that there were one or two external controls, and my hon. and learned Friend has mentioned one: the European convention on human rights. The concept of a Bill of Rights is one way in which to entrench rights; I am broadly in favour of incorporating the European convention into domestic law and glad that that has happened. Although that gives judges a policy-making role, they have had such a role ever since we first subscribed to the convention. The question is whether they should be based in the UK or in Strasbourg; my preference is that they should be UK-based, subject to appeal. That is a constraint of which I am broadly in favour. A second lies in our membership of the EU, which carries both rights and obligations, and I am bound to say that I am less enthusiastic for that model of control, because the democratic underpinning is far less good than it ought to be.
That brings me to my main point. I believe that we ought to create a bicameral system in which the second Chamber has powers that are very similar to those of this

703
House. Let me be candid: my objective is to create in the second Chamber an elected body that has a genuine ability to constrain and restrict the power of the Executive. I want to create a body or forum in which there will be more effective scrutiny of the detail of legislation than is exercised in this place. Finally, I want the second Chamber to provide effective entrenchment of minority rights.
To create a second Chamber with such extensive powers, one must confer legitimacy on it, and that takes me back to my intervention on the hon. Member for Stoke–on–Trent, Central, with which he was good enough to agree. Where Parliaments and representative bodies are involved, the only legitimacy that is now accorded respect is that which stems from election. Therefore, I am in favour of a second Chamber that is elected either wholly or to a very large extent, certainly by direct franchise.
Right hon. and hon. Members have expressed criticism of such a system and I have some sympathy with their views. I agree that we must not create a facsimile of the House of Commons in the other place—that would be a tragedy. Therefore, those right hon. and hon. Members who say that the Executive should not be represented in the other place are absolutely right. Ministers from this place can go to the other place to answer questions and participate in debates there, but we want to remove the ministerial career structure from that place. To answer the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), I think that such an arrangement would diminish the Whips' control in the other place.
I also want different electoral arrangements. To the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), I say that I am not hostile to the use of proportional representation in respect of the other place, even though I am wholly opposed to its use in respect of the House of Commons. I am sorry that I cannot carry my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) with me on that point. I should also like elections to the second Chamber to be staged: that is, a rolling programme with one third of Members subject to election at a time.
Mr. Garnier: The problem with using proportional representation or some other form of election for the other place is that it would confer a different degree of legitimacy. Although I agree with much of my right hon. and learned Friend's argument, if we had different systems of election for each House, I fear that the other place would be criticised by Members of the House of Commons as lacking the quality of legitimacy that we have.
Mr. Hogg: I am not sure that I agree with that criticism. The reason why I am opposed to PR being used in elections to this place is not that it confers less political legitimacy on the outcome, but that it makes good government almost impossible. That is a different problem altogether. Because PR can result in an equally representative—perhaps more representative—body, it would not be open to Members of this place, who are elected by first past the post, to say that those who were elected by PR are less representative. I do not want PR here, but not because it would create a less representative body.
My final point relates to the risk of creating the potential for deadlock. There is a danger of deadlock, but it is perfectly possible to create anti-deadlock
704
mechanisms. The exact mechanism, its shape and weighting, depends on the balance one wishes to strike between the two Houses. However, one would have to bear in mind the fact that we are talking about having two elected Chambers—two democratic Chambers; having recognised that, one begins to realise that those who assert the primacy of this House have not faced up to the fact that there would be another House of equal respectability. Such a House is what I want to create.
I cannot say that I am optimistic. I believe that what will emerge from the process is a model that does not satisfy the aspirations of those of us who want there to be a second Chamber with greatly enhanced powers and, therefore, one that is wholly or largely elected. However, if that is what emerges, we will have missed a great opportunity, so we should not be backward about asserting our beliefs, even though people will say that I am advocating the removal of powers from the House of Commons. In fact, if my analysis is correct and acted on, it would diminish the powers of the Executive and, in the words of the great and historic resolution passed by this House, the power of the Executive
"has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished."
7.7 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am grateful to be able to speak in this debate and to follow so many distinguished and erudite right hon. and hon. Members who have long experience of constitutional matters. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), other than with his distaste for Governments with large majorities—it is harder for one whose constituency majority is only 1,500 to accept that view. That matter aside, there was merit in his somewhat pessimistic assessment of the whole question of House of Lords reform.
We have to consider composition. In an ideal world, we would start with powers and then move on to composition, but each form of composition has a different effect on the outcome. There are three forms of composition on offer: election, appointment and the hybrid form, one possible manifestation of which was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), who dipped his toe into functionalism.
The idea of the second Chamber being elected is gathering a head of steam, especially among the Opposition, but it has inherent problems which can be seen in countries with a history that is somewhat similar to our own. One hundred and thirty years ago, the United States Senate was a shadow of its current self: all the action after the American civil war was led by the House of Representatives, which overshadowed the Senate at that time.
The balance of power between those two bodies has changed since then, as a consequence of the change from Senators being indirectly elected to their being directly elected. Until about 1914, they had been elected from the state assemblies; thereafter, the American Senate had the ability to take to itself power and authority that it had not had before. If we go down the route of having a directly elected upper House, we should be aware that such a House will take to itself powers additional to those that we give it, because that is what constitutional bodies always do if they believe that they have the authority to do so.

705
If we take that approach, the question then is what method of election we adopt. We perhaps saw the House of Lords at its worst on the question of the European elections. Five or six times it ping-ponged back to this House the European elections legislation because, in the first place, it did not approve of any form of proportional representation. Once it had accepted proportional representation, the argument was about whether the list should be open or closed. We ended up with a closed list which, I suspect, has a very small minority of support in this House and in the House of Lords. When the House of Lords had the opportunity, because of the time pressure on the European elections legislation, it funked it and did not act as a check or barrier to the power of the Executive.
If we adopt a system of proportional representation for the upper Chamber and hold the elections at different times from those for this House, we will move almost inevitably into gridlock because both Houses will try to assert their power. I understand why those of a Conservative disposition would not be averse to gridlock. I do not mean to be offensive when I say that it has always been the position of the Conservatives, at least until the past 20 years, to avoid undue change.
Historically, Conservatives have been supporters of upper Houses or second Chambers, and radicals have normally been opposed to them. That is because radicals wish to move matters along and Conservatives wish to slow everything down or wish for nothing to change at all. If that is still the case, support for a second Chamber is to be anticipated on the right of politics but is more surprising on the left. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) claimed that more powers should be given to an upper House, and that fits logically with the gridlock approach to democracy.
Why are we considering an upper House at all? It is because we want to put a check on the Executive and on democracy itself.
Mr. Maclennan: I would not favour gridlock, and I take seriously the criticism the hon. Gentleman makes. Does he agree, however, that, on occasions, gridlock might reflect the public wish, as in the case of the poll tax? Gridlock can be dissolved by public opinion when an election is imminent. Those who are sustaining opposition to the Executive can be punished at the polls if they do so unreasonably.
Mr. Hurst: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's view, but I submit that the disadvantages of gridlock outweigh the protection he suggests. He mentioned the poll tax, but the party that introduced that tax was not punished at the polls subsequently. It was returned to office.
In other countries, such as Australia, which has an upper House, a double dissolution is the most common way to resolve disputes between the two Houses. Often, the dispute is not resolved, because one House is elected on a variation of our electoral system and the other by proportional representation. The upper House seldom has an overall majority.
706
If we have an elected upper House, we will let a genie out of a bottle and people will rue the fact that they cannot put it back in.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does my hon. Friend agree that gridlock could be avoided if one had sufficiently strong Parliament Acts?
Mr. Hurst: I have, I hope, learned the phraseology of the House in the time that I have been here, so I tell my hon. Friend that I shall come to that point later in my speech.
The other option is an appointed upper House, which runs into the barrage set up by the word "patronage". Sometimes we appear to live in a squeaky-clean intellectual world in which we believe that policies can operate entirely without patronage, party Whips, party loyalty or any other aspects of the glue that makes effective government possible. The argument against an appointed Chamber is that it would lead to patronage. How would its members be appointed fairly? Would the Prime Minister be completely unbiased, and would the Leader of the Opposition put forward the best names available? Would a commission be impartial? Who is to appoint the impartial commission? All those problems argue against an entirely appointed upper House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster proposed a notion that was interesting both historically and intellectually. He suggested a combination or hybrid system. He said that the elected system had defects and the appointed system had defects and that we should therefore have a combination of the two. However, that is like saying that if one has one bad egg and adds another to it, one somehow achieves a good egg. In my submission, one achieves a doubly bad egg, unless my biology is in error. Any argument against an elected system or an appointed system applies twofold to any hybrid or combined system. However, it is only by going outside an elected system that we could bring in to the House the experts, the wise men, the Solomons of our time who would deliberate and hold back from foolishness, and ensure that we did not destroy the prospects for the future of this nation.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the model whereby some Lords sit ex officio, as the bishops do, is useful? They have authority because of the office they hold, and that is not resented. It also serves a useful function in this House by sparing us the deliberations of the clergy of the established Church.
Mr. Hurst: That is an interesting point. It was well said by Bagehot that if we had an ideal House of Commons, it is certain that we should not need a higher Chamber. To paraphrase more modern authors, as Simon and Garfunkel said in "Mrs. Robinson":
"Every way you look at it you lose".
We would lose with an elected upper House, with an appointed upper House and with a hybrid upper House.
Why are we going through such heated discussion and intellectual strain to achieve an upper House? It is because we believe that we are failing in two ways. We are failing to operate the House of Commons effectively and also failing to control the Executive. That is why we endlessly

707
discuss what to do about the upper House. We should not put off the day when we consider the real problems before us—this House and control of the Executive—but we delude ourselves by thinking that we can solve the problem by creating a strange new upper House.
Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we reform the upper Chamber correctly, it will provide a powerful incentive for the reform of this House?
Mr. Hurst: If we attempt to reform the upper House, we will put off till doomsday any consideration of the reform of this Chamber or any effective controls on the Executive. I was pleased that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham mentioned the words of Dunning about the powers of the Executive increasing and needing to be diminished. I remember reading that in an A-level history examination in 1963—not in a contemporary question, but in one that related to the 18th century. That problem has been with the House for centuries and, until we can tackle it within this place, it will continue.
Mr. Letwin: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's observations about the need to check the Executive within the House, which has been a theme common to many speeches this afternoon. Is he optimistic that enough can be done in this place—without diluting the Government's ability to govern—to cure the problem in the absence of an effective second Chamber?
Mr. Hurst: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has ascertained where my remarks are leading: we do not need a second Chamber. We have believed throughout modern times that we needed a second Chamber, but the majority of democracies do not have one. It is argued that single Chambers work only in small democracies. There are normally second Chambers in federal situations and, despite what Opposition Members might say, we are not yet in that situation.
If we had single-Chamber government, we could apply our minds to reforming the problems in this place. As a comparatively new Member of Parliament, one of the main problems seems to me to be that, when a Bill leaves the Floor of the House and goes into Committee, the party system operates as sternly in Committee as in this place. A solution might be to have a single Chamber—the Lords within the Commons, if I may put it that way—and not to allow party majorities to operate in the Committee system. It could draw instead upon a pool of independent experts and those who are learned in particular subjects.
Matters could be debated in a non-partisan manner in Committee, and those involved could seek to improve rather than destroy the Bill. The Government of the day might then accept or reject amendments to the Bill on Report without the rancour of partisanship. If we approach the matter in that way, we might make real progress towards increasing the power of the House rather than chasing the will-o'-the-wisp of second-Chamber reform.
7.22 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I have been astonished by the frequent references to the reform of this place—I thought we were perfect, and popularly
708
perceived to be so. The serious question is: would any Government seek a reform of this place that made it a more effective brake on the Government? That is the crux of the matter. I do not believe that, beyond tinkering with various procedural matters, any Government of any hue will take seriously any attempt to reform this place to make it a more effective check on Government.
The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who made an interesting and entertaining speech, advanced a rather strange proposition. He basically said that this place works so badly that, if we destroy the only mechanism—however frail—of checking our bad behaviour, we will be so frightened by our behaviour that we will be forced to reform ourselves. That is an interesting and an ingenious argument, but it did not carry me altogether.
I think that we have accepted rather too readily the proposition that the primary role of the House is the creation and scrutiny of legislation. Apart from anything else, I think we legislate far too much, and I wonder what proportion of each legislative programme is spent making good the mistakes of previous programmes rather than introducing new legislation. I believe the Government spend far too much time worrying about announcing their business and organising their timetable, rather than ensuring that a smaller body of legislation is scrutinised properly so that it does not have to be repealed two legislative programmes down the track.
I think that our job is also to call the Executive to account for the way in which they perform their functions. Above all, my constituents want me to chase the Government about the way in which they and their agencies deliver on policies and on legislation that has been passed. Most of my correspondents and my constituents are concerned about oppressiveness, inefficiency, bureaucratic delay and all the other elements of a creaking administrative system for which Ministers are responsible. I am not sure that we have effective mechanisms in this place to address those problems, but that is as much a part of the House's role as passing legislation.
I think also that our purpose—this is manifestly borne out by the interest of the media, which is notably lacking in most of what we do—is to be seen to debate the great issues of the day. It does not matter very much whether there is a vote at the end of a debate. This place is still seen to be the centre of national debate on issues such as genetically modified food, euthanasia or any other subject that seriously exercises the public. Indeed, it is one of the few areas of debate in this place that the media take the trouble to cover.
Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend believe his concerns will be exacerbated by the removal of many debates from this Chamber to the Grand Committee Room? Will those debates be reported more widely than those that take place in this Chamber?
Mr. Rowe: It will be a shame if, in the mad rush to pass legislation through this place, debates that are central to the national interest are removed from this Chamber. I would rather see the legislative programme trimmed so that we may hold the main debates of our time in the House. For example, the media have been covering our debates on Kosovo—an area where the House has virtually no power—with meticulous care. In fact,

709
much of the action has taken place under prerogative power in which the House has no role. However, our debates have been covered carefully.
I share the Mackay commission's view that if we are to have a second Chamber—I believe that we should—it must have its own programme. The commission is right about that. It is ridiculous that two Chambers that share the same building should engage in so little joint action. The two Chambers should co-operate much more when the new second Chamber is created. I agree with those who argue that the second Chamber should not include representatives of the Executive.
We must explore whether the traditional pattern of Chamber service is the only way to go. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) painted an all too accurate picture of the disincentives to serving in this place, and it seems to me that those disincentives will operate with almost equal force in the second Chamber. I reckon that I am wholly unemployable in the outside world after 16 years in this place—I may have been unemployable when I escaped here in the first place, but that is certainly the case now. The same will be true of people who have served 15 years or so in the other place, so we need to think of ways to attract the lively specialists on whose expertise we all seem to be anxious to rely.
I wonder whether we could acknowledge how Members behave now and allow those who bring especial expertise mainly to attend the debates in which they can contribute that expertise. The practical difficulty with that would be voting. If there is an insistence, as there is in this place, that votes take place frequently, people who have been appointed because they are experts in social services or heavy engineering will feel inhibited about taking the job. If they could take part only in the debates to which they could make a specialist contribution, they might be delighted to do so, but if they had to turn out for regular votes, they might be reluctant to take the job. We need to examine that practical problem and to consider changes to the procedures for voting in the second Chamber.

I wonder whether there could be a much closer link between the second Chamber and the European Parliament. One of the most lamentable features of our parliamentary process is the fact that we have an almost entirely separate team with their own agenda and view of life who nominally represent us but have little contact with us. There is no time for that contact here, and our procedures do not make it easy to establish contact, but there is no reason why, in a revised second Chamber, it should not be possible, for example, for Members of the European Parliament to have a right of audience or to attend by invitation.
I remember vividly the meeting at which the Conservative party hierarchy decided that we would not allow Members of the European Parliament even to have a room at 32 Smith square because they were such undesirable, grossly overpaid characters and we were jealous of them and did not want them. That did enormous damage to the Conservative party because the divide between the Conservative team in the European Parliament and the rest of the party was unnecessarily exacerbated, and it led to a number of troubles on which I shall not dwell.
710
On the composition of the second Chamber, I am entirely in favour of direct elections. I agree with the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) that we must have a different franchise and that the Members should be elected for a different period. The Mackay commission suggested multi-Member constituencies for at least part of the Chamber's constitution. That is a possible method, but we should have direct election of one sort or another. Like the American Senate, the second Chamber should be elected for a different period and in a different election year.
It is nonsense to suggest that direct elections give institutions equal authority. Authority is defined by the rules. For example, nobody believes that local authorities, which are directly elected, have power or influence equal to that of this place, because the powers of local authorities are defined by this place. If we define the powers of the second Chamber, there is no reason why we should create a Frankenstein's monster that will gobble us up sooner or later.
Finally, we should be much more imaginative and discover new ways of finding and electing the Members of the second Chamber. I shall give one example, which relates to an experiment so tentative that I mention it with care. The embryo United Kingdom youth Parliament is experimenting with the idea of having virtual members. Young people can be given a form of ID and can click onto the website and take part in debates. That may develop into a pool of young people whom one could not only ask for ideas about what might be on the agenda of a youth Parliament, but use as a source of potential candidates.
I understand that that is a radical suggestion, and I am aware that it may not work, but we are moving into a world in which there is an enormous amount of electronic interaction and in which information and choice are offered electronically. It might be worth at least considering the harnessing of that technology to the second Chamber because it is such a hassle to introduce even simple communication methods into this building of which we are all so fond and, rightly, proud—one must find an electricity socket and get someone to bring a slide projector or whatever one needs—that we are the laughing stock of the general public. The revised second Chamber might give us an opportunity at least to experiment with new devices.
7.36 pm
Dr. Tony Wright: I am about to make some high-minded and non-partisan points, so I shall begin with a thoroughly partisan point. The process of reforming the second Chamber—which is entirely to be welcomed, and I applaud the way in which the Government are making progress—has caused us to forget why we are doing it. The reason is that we have a second Chamber that, in its present form, is entirely indefensible.
There are people who doubt whether stage 2 will ever happen. We have heard hon. Members say with some authority that the transitional stage may become the final stage, which is a genuine fear. Nevertheless, we must not think of the current second Chamber as a faded antique that we simply have to touch up. It is fundamentally unsatisfactory. The idea that, at the end of this century, we still have a second Chamber composed in large part of an hereditary element is an outrage. We must tell ourselves that throughout today's rather high-minded discussion.

711
To remind myself and other hon. Members of that, I turned to the history of the other place, which I shall take a moment to recount. It involves the history of the Conservative and Liberal parties early in the century when they were merrily selling places in the upper Chamber. I shall give two examples before I move on to the high-minded part of my speech. The Bonar Law papers provide conclusive proof that honours were bartered for subscriptions to party funds in the early part of the century. When Bonar Law became Leader of the Conservative Opposition in 1911, he received a memo—
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Wright: Not until I have made my point. Bonar Law received a memo from the party manager, Arthur Steel-Maitland, on the state of the party's organisation and finances. The document reported that the party had a nest egg of £300,000 and that
"a year's peerages are hypothecated".
Steel-Maitland went on to say that he hoped for an income of between £120,000 and £140,000 by the end of 1913.
Mr. Grieve: I am trying gently to encourage the hon. Gentleman to move on to the high-minded bit by reminding him that, although he is talking about the hereditary system of peerage at that time, there is a great deal of evidence that similar things have been happening under the appointed system of peers. I therefore fail to understand how he sees anything more legitimate about the appointed system.
Dr. Wright: I am interested in that intervention. If any hon. Member does not find the sale of peerages the most outrageous thing concerning the second Chamber this century, they do not quite understand what has been happening in that institution or, indeed, our political system. I shall, therefore, give the hon. Gentleman the second bit of low-mindedness, which refers to the Liberal party and Lloyd George's sale of the century: the 1922 birthday honours.
I refer particularly to the case of Sir Joseph Robinson, who was to be elevated to the peerage. It was discovered that he had been engaged in all kinds of shady business dealings in South Africa. Indeed, the South African Supreme Court asked him to repay £500,000 as a result. That caused some consternation; there was a debate in the House of Lords in which it was discussed how on earth a man of such a disreputable character could have been offered a peerage. It was announced in a further debate that Sir Joseph had written to the Prime Minister asking to be allowed to decline the peerage offered to him.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Wright: Just a second.
Lloyd George's reply to Sir Joseph, accepting his decision to refuse a peerage, was delivered to Robinson at the Savoy hotel by an official of the National Liberal party. Sir Joseph misunderstood the message, reached for his cheque book and asked, "How much more?" I am afraid that that is the history of the institution in the early part of this century; that is the outrage and that is the motivation for ensuring its reform.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Although I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, for
712
giving way, he is dredging up selective history—it is extremely selective—in order to advance a case about which nobody in this House is arguing. Nobody is arguing for the sale of peerages. The House of Lords Bill has gone through this House and to another place. We are not seeking to defend the automatic right of hereditary peers. The hon. Gentleman is walking on extremely thin ice because, not long ago, his own party gave peerages to a range of slightly odd characters, many of whom are on record as fairly major donors to it. What credit is he bringing on anybody by dredging up this rubbish?
Dr. Wright: I can understand why such issues should be unsettling, but it is important that we get the history right. Only the Labour party has not been involved in the sale of peerages. That is simply the case. If we want to bring the story slightly up to date—
Mr.Tyrie rose—
Dr. Wright: I shall finish answering the previous intervention. It was only in the previous general election campaign that the Conservative party defended the rights of hereditary peerages and argued for the status quo. We may argue about history and how right it is to refer to it when talking of reform, but the fact nevertheless remains that the Conservative party was so wrong on so much so recently concerning this issue that it is difficult to take it entirely seriously when it argues for the positions for which it seems to be arguing—although not terribly coherently.
Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman's party has been successful only because it has adopted so many Conservative party policies. If our policies were so wrong, why has his party been so successful?
Dr. Wright: I confine myself to the point at issue—[Interruption.] It is a rather important point at issue. I do not want to be detained by it, but the fact is that the Conservative party went into the election defending the hereditary peerage and opposing reform of the House of Lords, just as it opposed a freedom of information Act, devolution and a human rights Act—all things that are making our political system more democratic and decentralised.
Mr. Tyrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Wright: In order that I may endeavour to find some common ground, I would rather move on and give way later. Perhaps I should not have stirred things up, but there it is.
It is rare that we have an opportunity to think freshly about a political institution. We make modest reforms here and there, but, on this occasion, we are being asked to think freshly about what we want to do with a central institution of the political system. We can do so only if we are fairly clear about the issue—what we think are the difficulties and the problems to which a reformed institution might be the answer. Unless we do that, we shall get into all kinds of difficulties.
It is possible to invent a second Chamber that might be able to do all kinds of interesting things and might be composed in all kinds of interesting ways. We might

713
look around the world at other second Chambers and borrow this from there and that from here. In all sorts of ways, that would be mistaken because second Chambers are usually responses to particular situations in particular political systems. Sometimes, they are a way of trying to heal religious or regional differences, or of bringing the country together. We must be clear about the central problem; if we do not know what it is, we shall not know what reform might be the solution to it.
I agree very much with those who say that the central problem is that of an Executive who have too much power, and that the agencies and institutions that are there to check have too little. There is nothing original in saying that. It has been the standard critique of our political system for as long as I can remember. Twenty years ago, Lord Hailsham famously described our system as an elective dictatorship. He was right then; the analysis is true now.
Parties wax and wane on the issue depending on whether they are in government or in opposition. As we have seen in this debate, a party in opposition is terribly interested in issues of scrutiny and accountability—all things in which they had no interest when in government. Similarly, a party in government rapidly loses interest in issues of scrutiny and accountability in which it had great interest in opposition. I am afraid that that is one of the truisms of political life.
The central fact nevertheless remains that we have a peculiar system of what is often called strong government—a Government who have concentrated Executive power. Because we do not have a separation of powers, and because the Executive are drawn from the dominant party in the House of Commons, if we are not careful, we almost necessarily have a supine House of Commons. Necessarily, the House of Commons is controlled by the Executive.
That is our system and I see no immediate prospect of changing it. Such facets are characteristics of a system of strong government. I simply argue that if that is our system, and if we want it to continue, we must at least balance it with a system of strong accountability. We must have strong government on the one hand, because that gives coherence, direction and some crude political accountability. However, it will work satisfactorily and meet the tests of scrutiny and accountability only if it is matched by strong accountability. If this House of Commons cannot provide that by itself, it must be provided in a range of other ways, of which this House will be part.
We are creating a range of mechanisms that are beginning to help in achieving those objectives. Devolution helps to achieve them, by beginning to decentralise power. The Human Rights Act 1998 helps to achieve them, by beginning to give basic rights to citizens and against the Executive. I hope that a freedom of information Act also will help, by checking the Executive and making them less secretive. However, a reformed second Chamber also can help, by doing the general job of recognising that we have a system of strong Executive power that is tolerable only if it is always matched by institutions of strong accountability.
Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the interesting point on the Human Rights
714
Act 1998—the introduction of which, as he may be aware, I broadly supported. What most worries me is that the Government, having passed that Act, are now chickening out in implementing it. Does that not bring us back to the point, which he himself made—that the longer Governments are in power, the more reluctant they are to initiate change? Therefore, on the broad issue of House of Lords reform, Opposition Members are anxious that, the further into this Parliament we go, the more apparent it is becoming that removing the hereditary principle is only an opportunity to substitute a purely appointed principle, which is equally bad.
Dr. Wright: I had planned on dealing with that point in a moment. For the moment, however, in my search for non-partisanship on the issue, I shall not be distracted from the argument that I was trying to develop.
If it is true that we need institutions of strong accountability, we shall have to create a second Chamber that—to put it in a nutshell—is neither a rival nor a replica of the first one. There is no question but that we have a primary Chamber in the House of Commons, and that is as it should be. This is the primary Chamber, which initiates, directs and governs. However, the virtues of having a primary, Executive-dominated Chamber are realised only if that Chamber is matched by other institutions that hold it to account. That is the real opportunity in reform of the second Chamber.
There is no great need to revisit the powers of a second Chamber. As other hon. Members have already said—I shall not go over the same ground—a reformed second Chamber will be more confident in using its powers. That will be the major change. A reformed second Chamber will have to be taken seriously, and conventions currently inhibiting the use of the powers of the unreformed second Chamber will not be sustainable. Those conventions will go, and the second Chamber will do the things that it should be doing.
In constitutional matters, however, there is a case for saying that the second Chamber should have a more developed role. We already give it a specific role in dealing with any attempt to extend the life of a Parliament; we already use it to provide that basic constitutional protection. However, I should go further and say that, if this place wants to do anything that offends basic constitutional rights—for example, if it were to seek systematically to erode the rights of Opposition—the second Chamber should act as a constitutional backstop. In any consequent conflict, a referendum could perhaps decide the issue. Nevertheless, I agree with those who have said that, in dealing with more usual situations, it might be more useful to develop routine anti-gridlock mechanisms.
We have to be able—having had a discussion about powers and activities—to address the underlying issue of legitimacy. People may ask of the second Chamber, "Who are these people? Why should they be taken seriously, listened to or be able to exercise a delaying power?" Unless we can answer that question in terms of legitimacy, ultimately, the second Chamber will be ineffective. Any fundamental reform will have to grapple with that fundamental point.
We shall, therefore, have to balance a range of often competing interests and issues, some of which have already been mentioned in the debate. We need to have

715
sufficient election to provide sufficient legitimacy—without which we shall not be able to answer the question of who those people in the second Chamber are. Nevertheless, I am absolutely clear that if we had simply a purely elective system, producing in the House of Lords a clone of the House of Commons, we shall only make the position worse rather than better.
I am equally clear that a party nominee, closed list system is substantially no different from a system of direct appointments. The closed list system may seem better and feel more legitimate, but—as the European elections show—that may not necessarily be so.
In thinking about those issues, I started by being rather keen on indirect election. Many years ago, I was very keen on ideas of functional representation—which, for much of this century, was a sub-current in British thought on those issues. I am not sure whether it was Sidney Webb or Winston Churchill who once talked about a "house of industry". Nevertheless, many people have explored the idea of trying to establish a system of functional representation alongside our system of direct representation.
The problem is that it is fiendishly difficult to work out how to create such a system. Therefore, in my own mind, reluctantly, I have had to move away from some of those fancy schemes of indirect and functional election, as I simply could not see how they would work in practice.
My conclusion—it is not an original one, but I reached it after trying to think my way through the issues—is that it would make sense to try to have the best of both worlds, and not the worse of two bad eggs. We want the merits of election without the demerits of total election, and we want the merits of appointment without the demerits of total appointment. Such a system necessarily entails an exploration of a mixed system that has to be—I phrase this carefully—predominantly elected, so that it must be taken seriously and passes the test of basic legitimacy. Beyond that, we need sufficient appointment to guarantee independence and expertise.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I am following with great interest my hon. Friend's cogent points. However, is he not really advocating a system in which all Members of the second Chamber are legitimate, but in which some are more legitimate than others?
Dr. Wright: No. I think that we create legitimacy in different ways. We do not, for example, elect magistrates or juries. We have different ways of finding people to serve in public office. The challenge of finding a mixed system demands that we be reasonably imaginative and inventive.
We should not assume that one may have only election or only appointment—which is how the argument usually begins. I think that we can have not only the merits of election—thereby creating a predominantly elected House to reflect the party element of this place, and ensuring the legitimacy of election—but sufficient nomination to ensure that we create the non-party and independent element, and the range of expertise that we know that a second Chamber needs if it is not simply to be a replica of the House of Commons. That is the essence of the position at which I have arrived.
I shall detain the House only briefly with some further thoughts, some of which have already been expressed. If my argument is right, there is a case for not having
716
Ministers in a second Chamber. If we are serious about strong accountability, the lures of office and patronage should be dispensed with. The Executive have grown large over the years and are well able to attend upon a second Chamber, too.
We need to attend to the problems of the bishops and the Law Lords. I hope that those issues will not be fudged because they are serious ones. The present position is unsatisfactory and now is the time to remedy it. The position of the Lord Chancellor is unsustainable. I speak as a former Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Lord Chancellor. Even in a system that loves anomalies, his position is an anomaly too far. Reform of the House of Lords should be the moment when we attend to that.
It is no small matter to find our way through in a manner that commands as much consensus and assent as possible. Considering the history of attempts to reform the second Chamber, we shall need enormous political will and substantial consensus to achieve it. The history of failed attempts to reform the House of Lords shows that we know how not to do it. We have spent much of the 20th century failing to reform the second Chamber. We need a combination of political will and broad consensus. I do not doubt the Government's political will to see the matter through. The challenge for all of us across the House is whether we have the imagination and determination to produce a solution that can be implemented and will stand the test of time.
8.2 pm
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I agree with the last remarks of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), even if not with the first, but I shall not delay the House by taking issue with them, as I had momentarily intended to do.
I was walking across College green the other day when I bumped into a recently created life peer. I have known him for a long time and he has always been in favour of election to the second Chamber. He knew that I was, too. He buttonholed me and said, "Andrew, you are quite wrong about elections, you know. Quite wrong about having an elected House." "Why is that?" I asked. "Well," he replied, "if you are going to have any kind of proportional representation system, it means a list, which is basically an appointed system, because the party puts people on the list. That is no different, so I have decided I am against it." A large number of life peers are suddenly converting to the principle of nomination, having believed in the principle of election for many years. While the hereditaries were there they were safe, because there was a buffer zone between them and any threat of democracy, but they have twigged that the fresh air of democracy will be as much of a threat to life peers as the House of Lords Bill is to the hereditaries.
The life peers are a powerful vested interest—as powerful a vested interest as the hereditary peers have been over the years. The hereditaries are doing their best to cling on through the Cranborne-Weatherill amendment. It was only recently made public in an interview that Lord Cranborne negotiated a life peerage for himself as part of the deal to secure the amendment. He is in a Morton's fork. He will lose his right to sit because he sits by virtue of a writ of acceleration, so he is not ready even to be considered for election as part of the elected element in his scheme, but he does not have a life peerage either,

717
so he would have gone were it not for the special personal offer by the Prime Minister. That again shows the power of vested interests.
We, too, are a powerful vested interest.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Tyrie: In a moment.
This House has a monopoly of democratic authority. If we gave any elected authority to the second Chamber, we would have to share it.
The most important vested interest is the Executive. The Government have a huge vested interest in ensuring that no impediments are put in the way of pushing through legislation. That has been true of all Executives. I am not making an assault on this Government. It has been the case since the 1911 reform.
The power of vested interests on this issue is huge. We are talking about a large number of Members of Parliament, the Executive, life peers and hereditary peers. If we are to secure democratic reform, we must take the issue away from the vested interests and give it to the electorate to decide.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sorry to take my hon. Friend back, but he made a categorical statement about Lord Cranborne. I do not know whether he is right, but is he sure that he knows precisely what took place in a private alleged conversation between Lord Cranborne and the Prime Minister?
Mr. Tyrie: It is rather tedious to go through all this, but I have a transcript of Lord Cranborne's interview on "Breakfast with Frost". Since my hon. Friend has raised the issue, I suppose that I shall have to read it out. He said:
"Very kindly, the Government made it clear that … I could stay on if I wanted to as a life peer and I think it would be a bit churlish to turn that down—that general offer—particularly when there was a memorandum in the attached Bill making it clear they wanted to get rid of me. It is nice that they have changed their mind on that, too."
I think that that is a fairly clear answer to my hon. Friend.
This is our first debate on an issue that we should have debated two years ago—whether we want an upper House that is largely or wholly directly elected or one that is indirectly elected or wholly appointed. I have tried to answer that in various pieces that I have written over the past two years. It is worth going through some of the arguments briefly. Many of them have been mentioned today.
We need to be clear about whether we want a second Chamber. There are many unicameralists in the House, but most of them are not here today and their voice has scarcely been heard in the debate. I respect their views, but I find the arguments for bicameralism compelling. The Executive have become more powerful in recent decades. Many factors have contributed to that. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is no longer present, alluded to some of them, including the growth of the payroll vote, the professionalisation of Commons politics, the increase in the power of the Whips, the decline of the independent Back Bencher and the Executive's almost complete control over the Standing Orders of the House.
718
Our scrutiny of legislation is inadequate. After two years here, I am appalled by how shoddy legislation gets on to the statute book. I do not want to suggest that that has arisen only in the past two years. We also rely too much on the self-restraint of the Executive to protect our freedoms. A second Chamber can help to improve scrutiny and can act as a constitutional long stop.
Unicameralists may ask, "Why do we need the Lords to do those jobs? Why not reform the Commons?" That is a strong theoretical argument, but I do not think that such reforms will see the light of day. It is just possible that the Executive may be persuaded to support some improvement in the effectiveness of the Lords, but it is inconceivable that they will allow themselves to be restrained by radical reform of the Commons. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) made a similar point, and I agree with him.
Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are grounds for a little more optimism than he is expressing in that, as an Opposition, we now have an opportunity to bind ourselves to reforms of this place which, when in government, we would be forced to implement?
Mr. Tyrie: That is a welcome suggestion, and I will now give greater thought to how the House of Commons might be reformed so that I can add to that debate.
As things stand, a second Chamber that works is the only way to tackle the problem of an over-mighty Executive.
Before moving on to consider election, we have to ask ourselves whether an interim House such as that being created by the first Bill or a largely appointed House—or something very similar—could do the job of scrutiny. I do not believe so. I believe that stage 1 reform will leave the lower House controlled by the Executive and the upper House effectively appointed by them. Abolishing the hereditaries achieves very little. It merely ensures that ancient patronage is replaced by modern patronage. What quality of scrutiny could we hope to obtain from that?
When it is created, it will be a Chamber of virtually no legitimacy. It will be no more than an interim rump, effectively on death row. If there is any trouble, the Government will be able to threaten to press the stage 2 button and eject as many as they want from the remainder of the Chamber.
I do not believe that tweaking a few dials such as creating an appointments committee, can create a modern appointed Chamber that will command widespread public respect. Without that public respect, no second Chamber would be able to exercise its powers. That is the central flaw in the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk. He said that he wanted an increase in powers, but he did not want any increase in the moral authority of the Chamber in exercising them. He argued for some indirect election and some appointment. That would carry no more moral authority than we have now—in fact, it may carry less. By virtue merely of longevity, the existing House has come to serve some sort of constitutional role, although not a wholly adequate one. Once that has been removed—or even if there is only a moderate reform—what is left will have no moral authority.

719
The plain fact is that we live in a democratic age and only democracy can supply legitimacy. In the 21st century, parliamentary legitimacy must come largely from the ballot box. The public will find it increasingly unacceptable that parliamentarians should be created by a committee and given the power to legislate over them. Such a committee would amount to little more than a self-perpetuating oligarchy of the great and the good.
Sometimes I catch myself wondering why making that case should sound so radical. When I first raised this subject 18 months ago—shortly after I published my first article in The Times in favour of an elected House—an elderly colleague prodded me in the shoulder and said, "You're a republican." I can assure the House that I am not a republican and that I believe that it is entirely reasonable to envisage two parliamentary Chambers—directly elected or largely directly elected—while retaining the monarchy in its present form.
I believe that, only a few years ago, the vast majority of Labour party members, certainly those on the Front Bench, would have agreed that there should be more direct democracy in the House of Lords. Two years of being the Executive seems to have spawned a few doubts. After the election, there were still a few nods in the direction of democracy, but most of those have disappeared from Labour rhetoric.
I want to be slightly partisan in taking issue strongly with the Labour party's submission on reform of the House of Lords. It tells its own story. It is a profoundly anti-democratic document. It is replete with boxes of Labour party members' views—56 views are listed. I cannot find one Labour party member who is in favour of democracy—not one. On reading the boxes, one would believe that no one in Labour's grass roots believes in election. The press release that accompanied the document states:
"any proposals … for an elected second Chamber"—
that is proposals from the Conservative party—are
"naked opportunism masquerading as argument."
I find it appalling that the Labour party should produce a document suggesting that, if any Conservative such as myself stands here arguing for election—most of us have done it today—we should be accused of naked opportunism.
To read the Labour party document, one would believe that democracy was no way to achieve representation of the people. It calls for a "fully representative" Chamber of different interests and says that, above all, the House of Lords
"should be representative of the people as a whole."
That representation should be achieved not by election but by appointment. It is an outrageous abuse of language to talk about a representative Chamber that is wholly undemocratic. It is quite absurd.
Mr. Forth: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is flattered that the Labour party should assume that Conservatives should be opportunistic in arguing for
720
democracy. That means that the Labour party accepts that we would be the gainers from any democratic process. I find that flattering and encouraging.
Mr. Tyrie: My right hon. Friend makes his point very well. I do not believe that two years, or even five or eight years, ago we would have seen a document such as this from the Labour party. It is deeply regrettable.
Mr. Grieve: Does my hon. Friend agree that one or two of the contributions from some Labour Members today mark an evolutionary stage in Labour party thought? The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) was fascinated by the idea of corporatist elected Chamber, but we have a proposal for a corporatist Chamber that is not elected but appointed.
Mr. Tyrie: I agree.
I have got to know quite a large number of Labour Members who strongly support direct elections and I do not want to suggest that I am portraying all Labour Members in that light—far from it. I have had some fascinating conversations with people who follow pretty much the same line of argument as I, in favour of a largely or wholly directly elected Chamber.
What is more, although it is well concealed, the Labour party document rules out a second Chamber of mixed composition. It is worth bearing that in mind. I notice that one Labour Member is frowning, so I shall read the relevant passage. It says:
"Its Members should have equal standing and there should be no opportunity for some to assert that they have a greater legitimacy than others."
That can only mean that those who might have legitimacy as a result of being elected cannot sit alongside those who have been appointed. I should be interested if the Minister could enlighten me on what that sentence means, if it is anything other than my interpretation.
So where do we stand? The Executive seem to be determined to prevent even a whiff of democracy in a reformed second Chamber. They have issued a Labour party document that calls for a wholly appointed House, but they do not have the courage to say that that is what the document means.
Does democracy stand any chance at all? I have to say that I am not very optimistic, and I share the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) on that. I am sure that the royal commission was originally appointed with the idea of trying to kick the issue into the long grass. None the less, there are two sources of hope. One is the royal commission, which might surprise us by embracing democracy. The other is the existing House of Lords which might force commitments out of the Government with the passage of the stage 1 Bill.
On the royal commission, I am hoping for the best but fearing the worst. I am most impressed with the way in which its members are going about their work and I have already given evidence to them in writing and orally.
It is worth looking briefly at the composition of the royal commission. Some of its members have expressed quite clear views about an elected House. Only recently,

721
Lord Wakeham was reported as being sceptical about election. That was in The Times earlier this year. The Bishop of Oxford is completely against
"even a partially elected element"
in the second Chamber, as he made clear in a speech just under a year ago. I do not know the views of Sir Michael Wheeler Booth and Anthony King. Professor Oliver will almost certainly be in favour of some form of election.
I was also greatly heartened by some typically erudite remarks on the danger of appointed Houses from Lord Butler, the former Cabinet Secretary, when he quoted Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". Gibbon wrote of Augustus:
"The principles of a free constitution are irrevocably lost when the legislative power is nominated by the Executive".
Lord Butler went on to say:
"I think it of the highest importance, in the absence of hereditary Peers, for the Royal Commission to find a way in which to select Members of your Lordships' House which does not depend solely on the patronage of the Executive".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 1998; Vol. 595, c. 42.]
Of course he has had the benefit of seeing successive Executives exercising that power of patronage and I wonder whether that had any influence on his decision to express that view. I am not overly optimistic about the royal commission, but I am not yet overly pessimistic.
The other hope—which is a genuine one and not to be wholly ignored—is the possibility that the House of Lords itself in its present form might yet force commitments from the Government for direct democracy. The hereditary peers can do a great deal before they depart. They can and should force through two important amendments. First, they could demand a referendum. The Lords could demand that, whatever the content of stage 2, the Government should be required to hold a referendum on their stage 2 proposals. They should be forced to let the people decide.
Many Opposition Members, including me, are not particularly attracted to referendums as a matter of principle, but the Government have always said that they believe in them. If the Government believe that the end point of this reform should be an appointed upper House, as the Labour party's submission so clearly elucidates, let them take that issue to the people. They have had referendums on Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. Indeed, the White Paper refers to them glowingly. They have promised us referendums on economic and monetary union, and proportional representation.
In the local government White Paper, the Government promise to allow local authorities to hold referendums. If local authorities are to be allowed to hold referendums on whether to charge for home helps, what possible argument can the Government have against giving people a chance to decide something as fundamental as the reform of Parliament? Why cannot the people be given a chance to endorse the biggest change in the legislature this century?
The second amendment that the Lords could pass, which would add pressure for direct election, is a democratic one—a clause that would force the Government to bring forward a democratic stage 2 within, say, three years of the passage of the stage 1 Bill. That would open up the debate on democracy in the House and in the country in a big way.
722
If they did that, the 750 hereditary peers who are threatened by the stage 1 Bill would have an opportunity to be remembered not as a group who were clinging on to what the wider public consider unacceptable privileges in a democratic age, but as the people who brought the Executive to accept some constitutional restraint through election. They could be remembered as the people who checked the Government and reduced the risk that we could be left floundering with unicameralism in all but name, which is what the stage 1 Bill will bequeath us.
So we must hope for the best from their lordships and from the royal commission, but nobody should underestimate the power of the forces acting against democracy.
I believe that all of us who believe in an elected House and a largely or fully elected second Chamber should go out and try to make the case to a wider public. If the Executive were forced to go beyond Westminster, where they reign supreme, and talk to the people directly and explain that they intended to impose a largely or wholly appointed second Chamber, I have no doubt that they would soon produce proposals for a largely or wholly elected second Chamber.
8.26 pm
Mr. Bill Rammell: I welcome the opportunity to participate in a thoughtful debate. I used to be sceptical about the passion that people brought to constitutional issues, but, having attended all the Committee sittings on the Bill and the two days of debate on Second Reading and participated in numerous discussions, I am becoming as obsessive about the issue as many others. It is a bit like becoming a train spotter late in life. I apologise to any of my constituents who happen to be train spotters.
It is an interesting debate and we should not underestimate the degree of historic change that we are witnessing. I should like to follow some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). We are ending the indefensible—people voting in one of our Houses of Parliament simply on the basis of the family into which they were born. We are ending the deformity of one of our Houses of Parliament, whereby its members come predominantly from one background and from one class with one set of beliefs and one set of values, and certainly support one political party. Many Opposition Members underestimate the power of that criticism of the current make-up of the House of Lords and the resentment that many people feel about it.
We are also rightly ending the party political abuse of the second Chamber. It is not about independence and detachment, but about the naked abuse of party political power. Two thirds of peers who take a party Whip in the House of Lords take the Conservative Whip. It is not about independence, scrutiny and a check on the Executive; it is and has been for centuries about the domination of the second Chamber by Conservative peers who have used their power to frustrate the will of democratically elected Labour Governments.
It is also about ending unrepresentativeness. We will have a debate about whether representativeness can be achieved solely by dint of election, but the current make-up of the House of Lords, with only 2.5 per cent. of its members being women and very few coming from ethnic minority backgrounds, presents a real problem. I

723
hope that the process that we have set in train will bring that to an end. It is worth underlining what we are doing. We are making a change that is long overdue and demonstrates the radical constitutional nature of the Government.
Before I talk in detail about my views on the form and composition of the new Chamber, it is worth dealing with some of the criticisms from Conservative Members. I was interested to hear the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) say that the only positions in public life that are legitimate in the eyes of the public are those that result from direct election. Despite that sincerely held view, elected office is probably held in lower esteem than it has been at any time in recent memory. Therefore, it is at least worth considering that elections—although crucial to the make-up of the House of Commons—are not a panacea and are not appropriate to every nook and cranny of our constitutional settlement.
Some of the comments concerning the domination of this place by the Executive have been interesting. It is at least fair to say that those concerns were not voiced fully by Conservative Members of Parliament when their party was in power. Perhaps opposition releases people from the constraints of office and allows them to think more liberally.
I was interested to hear the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham say that he did his duties as a Whip reluctantly—presumably, he told people that what he was doing was hurting him far more than them. Conservative Members would know better than I. However, there are concerns about domination by the Executive, but these come when one party has a large majority.
It is interesting to reflect that in three of the previous four general elections, one party has been elected with a majority of more than 100. It is in those circumstances that concerns about domination by the Executive come to the fore. We could resolve that by moving to a fairer voting system in which views are more fairly represented. However, there are different ways of dealing with the matter rather than by simply looking to elect a second Chamber. That is an answer to a question that is not being posed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton–under–Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and Conservative Members referred to the need for an alternative career structure within this House. That is a legitimate point which could deal with some of the concerns and tensions about domination by the Executive. However, I do not think that that is in any way dependent on reform of a second Chamber. Such ideas should be debated in any case.
I was interested in the claim made by a number of Conservative Members that, if the Government had simply brought forward the matter immediately after the general election and set up the royal commission at that stage, we could have had consensus on a reformed second Chamber. I hope that Conservative Members will forgive my scepticism about that. The debate about the nature of the House of Lords has been going on for 88 years. In the 18 years in which the Conservatives were in power, they never once proposed any detailed substantive reform for the House of Lords. I do not believe that, immediately following the general election, the Conservative party was serious about reform.
724
Conservative Members referred to the old chestnut that the Government should have brought forward the two-stage reform in one stage. That is a flawed argument. Over the past 88 years, Members of the Conservative party have claimed to support House of Lords reform, but said that they needed to see the endgame before they could commit themselves. The lack of agreement on the endgame is always what thwarts the process of reform, so I do not believe that that argument carries much credence.
I wish to refer to what kind of second Chamber we want, what its functions should be, how it should be established, what its role and procedures should be and its relationship to this House. The first point, alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), was whether we should have a second Chamber at all. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend and, on balance, I think that we need a second Chamber. We need within our constitutional settlement the possibility of asking the Government to think again.
We need a second Chamber to allow us to bring in the outside expertise that we do not necessarily get through bringing in professional politicians. We need a second Chamber in which it is possible to get greater detachment and independence from the party Whips—my apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) on the Front Bench—which would come from the second Chamber not having the vast majority of its Members relying for their living on their seat within that House. We certainly need a second Chamber to check abuse of power by the Executive.
Fundamentally—this concern was not addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree—we need a second Chamber as the ultimate guarantor to stop this House extending its term of office and postponing or abolishing elections.
Having dealt with these issues, the key question becomes one of the composition of the second Chamber. As someone who believes that the hereditary principle is an abomination—a view that I have held all my political life, as has my party—my instinctive reaction is that the answer should be direct elections. I hope now to set out my scepticism about that. The more I have become involved in the process, the greater my concern has been about direct elections to the second Chamber.
Those concerns stem from fact that I do not want the pre-eminence and superiority of this House to be challenged. It is in this House that the Government are accountable. It is in this House that we are the primary legislators. I do not want to undermine that. My concern with the current status of the House of Lords is that democratically elected Governments of the left have had their programmes obstructed by the undemocratic nature of the House of Lords.
I do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water and have a situation where democratically elected Governments of the left find that their legitimate mandate is thwarted by a second Chamber with an equally powerful electoral mandate which seeks to frustrate the legitimate aspirations of the Government as stated in their manifesto.
Mr. Grieve: Why should those aspirations be frustrated if there is an elected second Chamber? For instance, it might be that, two years into the elected period of the Government—when their mandate is becoming a

725
little stale—fresh Members of the upper House may say not that they wish to thwart that mandate, but that they disagree with some aspects of it and wish to make the Government think again by exercising to the full their powers under the Parliament Acts. What is the matter with that?
Mr. Rammell: The hon. Gentleman underlines one of my key concerns: that elections to the other place would be conducted in mid term and people elected with a fresh mandate would argue, however small the proportion of elected Members, that their mandate was stronger than the Government's. We would be in danger of constant gridlock and the blocking of the legitimate mandate won by a Government in a general election.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The important element of the elections is that they would be rotational. If a third retired at each fixed-term House of Lords election, every Member would have legitimacy to cause reflection, but there would not be a mandate to block completely the will of the House of Commons, whose view must ultimately prevail. There would never be the snapshot of time that gives us in the House of Commons a mandate. Members of the other place would never be able to claim supremacy, although each Member would have legitimacy.
Mr. Rammell: We would need to think through the detail. Even if only a third were elected at any one time, clearly there would be others in that House under the same party label who would draw inspiration and encouragement from the electoral mandate that that third of the House got. I am not ruling out elections, perhaps for a proportion of Members, in all circumstances, but I am highlighting the fact that we need to think long and hard before automatically and instinctively responding to the inadequacies of the current make-up of the House of Lords by replacing it with an elected second Chamber. Before we knew where we were, we would have constitutional gridlock between the two Houses and the Government of the day, democratically elected with a significant mandate, would be unable to implement their programme beyond a period of two years.
Mr. Savidge: As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said, if the legislation says that the other House can only delay and cannot create gridlock, there is a perfectly good reason why a Government, who no longer have the support of the country should be made to think again.
Mr. Rammell: As we all know, the power of delay can be extremely significant and can affect the rest of a Government's legislative programme.
We also need to consider what is the role of a second Chamber in relation to this Chamber. This is where we hold the Government to account and where we are the primary instigators of legislation. Conservative Members may say that that is not the situation at present, and perhaps that is one of the problems with the current constitutional set-up, but I do not think that the right response is necessarily direct elections.
726
The role of the second Chamber should be tightly circumscribed. It should be a constitutional long stop, checking abuse and asking this place to think again. I am not convinced that to carry out that role one must necessarily be elected. We do not have a political culture and system in which every form of public office in every nook and cranny of our constitution is elected. We do not elect the dog catcher and we do not elect the judiciary. We should pause for thought.
Where is the enthusiasm for elections among the electorate? Perhaps my experience of the current European parliamentary election campaign has been unique, but I do not detect massive enthusiasm in the electorate for voting in local or European elections. If we add a further set of elections for a reformed second Chamber, we may find that people lose interest more and more and the turnout becomes lower, which would not advance anybody's cause.
Mr. Tyrie: I strongly agree that there is a risk of voter fatigue. Might not a way round that be to hold the elections at the same time as general elections?
Mr. Rammell: That is one possible solution and it would certainly deal with the concern about elections taking place in mid term. I am not certain that the answer to the current inadequacies of the House of Lords is to move to a wholesale system of direct elections.
The concerns that I am voicing have been expressed consistently every time the House has considered these issues. The Brice conference in 1917—18, set up by Lloyd George, rejected the option of a directly elected second Chamber on the ground that such a Chamber would inevitably become a rival to the House of Commons. That same concern was expressed when the 1945–51 Labour Government considered the issues in 1948, and in 1968, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was involved in the campaign, and people such as Michael Foot voiced their reservations from a very democratic perspective.
If the second Chamber is not to be wholly elected, what should its composition be? There are certainly strong arguments for reflecting the new constitutional settlement, with representatives from the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, once it is established, and the English regions. Those people would be there to ensure that the overall constitutional settlement was taken into account.
There is also a strong case for Members of the European Parliament to be represented—[Interruption.] It is hardly surprising that that idea causes concern on the Conservative Benches. We should remember that 25 per cent. of our laws, and a much higher proportion of our business legislation, are derived from Europe, and we need to ensure that the interlocking between this place and the European Parliament, and our scrutiny of European legislation, take place on an informed basis. I do not think that anyone either in this House or the other place could say that that happens at the moment.
Mr. Grieve: I am wondering whether we shall hear anything from the hon. Gentleman about functional constituencies, which have been touted by the hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). Those would be

727
corporatist—and is it not as corporatist to include, as of right, Members of the European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, as it would be to include groups from industry, the law, the trade unions, the medical profession and so on?
Mr. Rammell: If that is done on a limited basis, I am not sure that, in view of the role that we are prescribing for the second Chamber, it would necessarily be a bad thing. There is at least a case to be made for a small element of representation from sectional interests, whether those be trade unionists, business people, doctors, teachers or whatever. We should explore the idea.
We also need to think long and hard about religious representation. Religious belief is part of the fabric of our society, and nobody suggests that the Church of England should be removed from the second Chamber. Britain today is a multi-ethnic, multicultural and multi-religious society, and it is important that, without the position of the Church of England being undermined, those views are represented in the second Chamber.
Inevitably, within the kind of set-up that I envisage, there will be a process of appointment. That is not necessarily wrong, so long as appointments are made openly and fairly. The move towards an independent appointments commission is important, as is the fact that the Prime Minister has voluntarily given up some powers of patronage.
We need to go further. If there are to be processes of appointment, political parties need to be far more open about how people can come forward and seek nomination for peerages or places in the second Chamber. We should advertise to tell people how to go about seeking a nomination; publicising the process will be important.
The view that nomination is wrong in all circumstances is not shared by most people, especially if the job is not to be primarily one of initiating legislation. That is not a role that we seek for the second Chamber. Despite the fact that this is one of the criticisms most frequently made, nomination does not necessarily mean domination by the Executive, especially as the Government, rightly, have said that no one political party will have a majority in the second Chamber.
No evidence has been produced to suggest that nominated peers, once established, are supine creatures who automatically do the will of their political parties. Let us take some examples of recently created life peers from both parties. No one could plausibly argue that the likes of Lord Hattersley, Lord Shore and Lord Tebbit are there as tame party poodles to carry out the will of the political parties that appointed them.
Under the current system of appointment, once people are appointed they are not accountable to the person or party that put them there—a view that the history of life peers in the House of Lords supports.
I turn now to some of my concerns about the relationship between the two Chambers after the reforms have been instituted. I am worried that too much of what we do happens by convention, which does not always work. Reference has been made to the Salisbury convention, but, in debates on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, the House of Lords sailed close to the wind in terms of challenging that convention. The Conservative peer Lord Kingsland said recently that abolition of hereditary peers was a solution to a problem that he did
728
not recognise. He considered that the Opposition would be entitled to think most carefully about whether the Salisbury convention applied to that Bill.
So, regardless of what 13.5 million people voted for in the Labour manifesto—the biggest Labour party landslide this century—Lord Kingsland considered that the gentlemen's agreement that is the Salisbury convention did not apply. I argue that the other gentlemen's agreements that police the relationship between this House and the House of Lords should not be allowed to continue.
Mr. Tyrie: The primary purpose of the Salisbury convention, as it was adopted after the war, was to deal with the disparity and imbalance between the two parties. The Government intend to impose parity in the interim House: does the hon. Gentleman think that the Salisbury convention should fall, or does he think that there should be a doctrine of the manifesto to trigger an arrangement similar to the convention and thus ensure that the Government always achieve what is contained in their manifesto?
Mr. Rammell: I think that there should be a doctrine of the manifesto. I was interested to hear a Conservative Member earlier pooh-poohing the notion that what appears in a manifesto is of any interest to politicians or the people who elect them. That attitude risks losing something that is unique about our democratic process. It is important that a party that gets a majority in this House has the opportunity to put into practice what is contained in its election manifesto. Even if there were parity between the parties in a reformed second Chamber, we would need firmer rules to ensure that what is in a manifesto can prevail.
I am also worried about the lack of an effective timetable in the other place. I am aware that if the second Chamber is allowed to have the power of delay, the Government cannot introduce a guillotine and thus remove that right. However, that power of delay must be circumscribed and confined, so that the rest of the legislative programme is not blocked, as has happened often in the past. In short, we need a new constitutional settlement to govern the relationship between this House and the House of Lords.
Finally, although there will be a debate about the form of the second Chamber and about how far elections should play a part in it, we need a second Chamber that really works in its limited role. The example of the Bill that became the War Crimes Act 1991 was mentioned earlier. That was a classic example of a proposal from the Government of the day that the second Chamber should have been able to challenge legitimately. It was a deeply emotive issue, but it was not a manifesto commitment and there were party divides on both sides of the House. One would have thought that the age and experience of Members of the second Chamber put them in a better position to form a judgment on the matter, but the second Chamber was flawed and seen to be illegitimate as a result of the involvement of hereditary peers, and the Government of the day simply brushed it aside by invoking the Parliament Acts.
If, in limited circumstances, the second Chamber is to have the right to challenge the will of this House, it must have legitimacy, openness and fairness in its composition

729
that allows it to be respected and listened to by the public and by the House of Commons. I hope that we can achieve that in future debates as the legislation is introduced.
8.54 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: The trouble with debates such as this is that it is easy for Members to agree with superficially attractive propositions. We have heard much of that tonight. There has been near unanimity on some simple propositions, most obviously the idea that it is essential to our political system to have a second Chamber that provides an effective check on and scrutiny of the House of Commons. One or two unicameralists among us did not share that view, but there has been widespread agreement that a second Chamber should scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account.
Another view widely, but easily, shared is that the second Chamber should be legitimate and accountable. Such words are widely used and it comforts politicians to be able to say them. However, the consensus goes no further. As soon as we have to put hard substance around those words, it becomes more difficult to reach agreement. I find it difficult to understand how Labour Members such as the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) can stress accountability and democracy, yet support an appointed second Chamber.
In fairness, I should say that some braver spirits on the Labour Benches have not done that. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) robustly supported an elected Chamber, as I do. It is difficult to understand how anyone, whether in my own party or in any other, can, in an era of allegedly open government, democracy, accountability and political legitimacy—all the things to which we say we subscribe—can say that the second Chamber of the legislature should be largely or even wholly appointed. That is unconscionable.
Few Members—the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple–Morris) is an exception—mentioned whether appointed legislators in another Chamber should have a fixed term or serve for life. The hon. Gentleman, in what was almost a throwaway remark, said that they should serve for life. That begs some interesting questions about how the composition of the Chamber could ever change to reflect changing circumstances. Presumably, it would have to happen by attrition if the number in the Chamber were to be limited. Alternatively, there might be no limit on the number, in which case we could return quickly to something perilously similar to the present arrangement.
Mr. Rowe: Is there not a tremendous danger that people would be reluctant to appoint people of other than a considerable age? What the legislature needs above all is more young people.
Mr. Forth: I was with my hon. Friend until his final words. I do not share the obsession with youth. When I had an element of responsibility for young people during the previous Government I was frequently told that our youth were our future. When I looked at some of them, I thought, "My God, I hope not", and I cannot agree with my hon. Friend.
730
In fact, I am tempted by the idea that there should be a higher age limit on eligibility for the second Chamber so that we could do the opposite of what my hon. Friend suggests, ensuring that the upper Chamber would be, by definition, mature and experienced and that its Members could not spend too long in it. That would provide an automatic renewal mechanism whether the Chamber was appointed or, as I would prefer, elected.
An appointment system raises real difficulties. Quite apart from lack of legitimacy and accountability, difficulties arise over numbers, the variability of the composition when circumstances change and the removal of Members who are no longer appropriate. There is also the vexed question—hardly covered in our debate, but one of the key considerations before us—of who would do the appointing, and who would appoint those who do the appointing, and who would appoint them. Despite the claims of Labour Members who are loyal to their Prime Minister, how could we guarantee that the Prime Minister would—as he has said he would—stand aside and allow the process to be non-political? I do not believe that and I suspect that even many Labour Members do not. For an appointed Chamber to be valid, we would have to be satisfied that appointments would be free of the patronage that has so often been mentioned tonight. Like so many of my hon. Friends, I readily argue for an elected second Chamber. To my mind, that is the only approach that we can countenance at this stage in our political history and constitutional development.
The second Chamber should be composed of a multiple of 87 Members. That number was not chosen at random, as cognoscenti will understand. We have a ready-made political map of 87 constituencies. They happen to be European constituencies, I might add sotto voce, but, for the purpose of my proposal, I will accept that. We could use that map almost immediately without needing a boundary commission. I would prefer a small Chamber, but I would be prepared to accept twice or even three times that number if that was deemed to be appropriate to the Chamber's functions.
I suggest long terms for Members of the Chamber, probably nine or 12 years, to give them some independence of the Government. That is important. A third should be elected every two or three years or perhaps a bit longer to make the Chamber responsive to the electorate and changes in their views and to make it a distinctive political entity with a validity distinct from that of the House of Commons and the Government.
As many hon. Members have argued, there must be no Ministers in the upper House, which would therefore become genuinely independent of the Government. It would reflect the electorate's views and gain legitimacy and accountability. There would be no power of patronage in the upper House because the Government would not determine what happened there. Because Members had long terms of office, they could act genuinely independently. We could thus meet many of the requirements that many hon. Members say that they seek—but often shrink from—in a revised second Chamber. I do not shrink from the implications of saying that the Chamber should be powerful because I want it properly to scrutinise and hold to account the Government of the day.
Some colleagues may know that I spend a lot of time in the Chamber. I am one of those eccentrics who attends on Fridays. Not everyone welcomes that, but I believe that

731
I can therefore say that I do my best to be a good Member of this House. That does not mean that I have blind faith in it or in the idea that everything begins and ends here. Nor do I accept without criticism the argument about the primacy of the House of Commons. I regret what I am about to say, but it is true. Many of those Members who talk about this House's primacy do not come here to support it. The thin attendance at this debate is an example, as is the pathetically small attendance on Fridays and on many other occasions. All the talk about the House's vital importance is regrettably not borne out by the actions of its Members.
Mr. Hogg: I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend says. With regard to Fridays, does he accept that private Members' Bills often diminish the rights of individuals to a marked extent? An obvious example was the attempt to prohibit foxhunting; another example is the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. However, as a general rule, the House is not well attended on the occasions when those measures are discussed—albeit that their consequence is greatly to diminish individual liberty.
Mr. Forth: I share the view of my right hon. and learned Friend and I am grateful to him for making that point. Many private Members' Bills would limit considerably the powers of individuals, or would introduce a large degree of regulation. However, few Members of the House turn up voluntarily to participate in the debates on those measures.
I do not necessarily agree with those who say that the House is so wonderful that it must never be challenged. I am prepared to countenance an elected upper House with enormous powers and ability to challenge what happens in the House of Commons. As so many hon. Members have pointed out, the real difficulty and the sadness about the modern House of Commons is that it is so much in the total control of the Executive of the day. That cannot be changed in the foreseeable future, so we owe it to the electorate to provide them with the assurance that there will be a second Chamber that can effectively challenge the Executive and hold them to account, in a way that I regret that the House of Commons rarely, if ever, now demonstrates that it is capable of doing.
Those are my arguments and, in view of the time, I shall draw them to a close. To complete them, I join the few Members who have highlighted the judicial role currently played by the House of Lords. That role can be, and should be, swept aside, along with the reforms that we are considering. We should have a supreme court, modelled closely on the one that has played such a distinguished role in the development of the United States throughout almost its entire history. The US Supreme Court is one of the most fascinating political institutions of the past 200 years; its role has been dramatic and remarkable. We would do well to emulate that court. If, as I suggest, we establish a wholly elected, accountable second Chamber, we should sweep away the unnecessary representation of the Church and other interests—I should be happy if that were gone, and the sooner the better. I should also be happy to see the judicial role of the upper Chamber brought to an end and replaced by a supreme court, modelled closely on that of the United States and able to play a similar role.
I am glad that the proposals that I have briefly outlined are shared by many of my colleagues. I hope that they find increasing support from Labour Members.
9.8 pm
Mr. Gareth Thomas: The debate has been genuinely interesting. It has helped me to formulate my views—albeit tentative ones—on a subject that raises difficult issues, especially when one deals with the vexed question whether the second Chamber should be elected or nominated. I had thought that I was reasonably knowledgeable on the subject, but, having heard the wide range of rather good-quality contributions, it is clear to me that I must bow to the greater specialist knowledge of several hon. Members.
I am a relatively new Member, having been elected in 1997. I represent a Welsh constituency and am committed to Welsh devolution. I am aware that there is a wide programme of constitutional reform and that reform of the second Chamber also has to embrace the reforms in that programme. I welcome the fact that a royal commission has been appointed and I expect it to produce a comprehensive and well-argued report.
The first of my conclusions is that there is a need for a second Chamber. I do not accept the rather intriguing argument employed by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst). However, I do accept the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). A second Chamber is a reflection of what is required in a particular country. In our jurisdiction, there is a strong Executive and a strong first Chamber—the elected Chamber. As a corrective to an over-mighty Executive, it is essential to have a second Chamber charged with the tasks of revising legislation and complementing the scrutiny role of the elected Chamber by bringing to bear specialised knowledge.
That is my starting point. Given the public demand for strong and accountable government exercised through the House of Commons, it is unrealistic to expect this Chamber to do all that is required to produce good-quality legislation. Unfortunately, there have been many examples of poor legislation, which, in themselves, provide ample justification for having a second, revising Chamber. I make no apologies for taking a somewhat minimalist view, for my second conclusion is that there is no strongly rooted case for revising the essential roles of the second Chamber. I disagree with the analysis of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who would like the role of the second Chamber to be greatly expanded.
I agree that there is an inherent problem in having an elected second Chamber that could contest the will of our elected Chamber, but my third conclusion is that there must be a strong independent element in any second Chamber. Although I was almost persuaded by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who offered an extremely good analysis of why, in the latter half of the 20th century, we must conclude that legitimacy is normally derived from the ballot box, I take the view that, to preserve the independence of the second Chamber and to ensure that it effectively fulfils its revising and scrutiny roles, it is necessary for it to consist of a wide range of people who reflect different experiences. I am sceptical that the conventional electoral system, which involves people working their way through conventional political parties, would produce the sort of people we want in the second Chamber.

733
In addition, like my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), I am concerned that the increased number of elections for different levels of government has resulted in voter fatigue. If the second Chamber is to have a limited role, which I would support, turnout in elections for it might be drastically low, which would undermine its legitimacy. The best way to ensure that we have an independent second Chamber is to have an appointments commission that is seen to be dispassionate, independent and detached from the Executive. Like the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I hope the Minister will tell us more about how the Government propose to give teeth to such a commission.
In Wales and Scotland, there has been debate about whether there should be territorial representation in the second Chamber. I support the view expressed many years ago in the Kilbrandon report that that would be undesirable. I am in favour of a broad spread of geographical representation, but not in any formalised way, because that might lead to confusion about the functions of the House of Lords—incidentally, I see no reason why its name should be changed.
A balance must be struck between, on the one hand, tradition and stability and, on the other, the need to create a second Chamber that is more representative and fulfils its role more effectively. Provided that we can deal with the overriding objection to the current system—that there is an in-built Conservative majority in the House of Lords—I would feel comfortable with a nominated House of Lords, so long as the system for nominations was truly detached and dispassionate and ensured good-quality, independent representation.
9.15 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: I shall have to be brief and I have only myself to blame if I am called last. I must apologise to the House for having missed the opening speeches. The reason, I must confide to the House, is that I was attempting to maintain my independence by carrying out some of my professional duties instead of attending the House, although I had hopes that I might be able to get here slightly earlier than I did. Perhaps I am paying the penalty for that, although I was reassured to hear several Labour Members suggest that it was not necessarily a bad thing that I should have some independent interests.
I start from the premise that I am a great believer in parliamentary democracy. That does not mean that I am a believer in pure democracy, because only the ancient Athenians had pure democracy and they tended to chop off the heads of members of the Executive whom they had democratically mandated at the end of each term. Parliamentary democracy works especially well in this country and in the structure of this Chamber because there is a reasonable degree of consensus about and acceptance of the decisions that we take. However, there are many flaws in the way this Chamber operates. I do not want to go into them in this speech, which will deal mainly with the upper House, but the way we carry out our functions is in need of massive reform. That that is so does not alter the need for us to consider what goes on in the House of Lords.
We have been offered a package that goes only part of the way. I accept what is said about the hereditary peers being anachronistic, but they are an independent element.
734
We are getting rid of that independent element and we will end up—it appears at the moment—with only nominated Members.
The functions of the upper House need to be strengthened—not enormously, but slightly. What I found most interesting in the contributions of Labour Members was not that they did not want the other place to have enhanced powers. Their fear was that the result of the reforms would be that the upper House might suddenly start to exercise the powers that it already has in a way that it would be wholly entitled to do. It could use its powers to scrutinise and, if necessary, delay legislation. That would be a good thing. I can think of few instances in which delaying legislation would result in some catastrophe, given the legislation that has passed through this Parliament since the second world war.
On constitutional issues, if there is disagreement between the upper House and this place, it is desirable that the upper House should have the power to block legislation and, if it blocks it twice, for the matter to be referred to a referendum to resolve it. That would be a powerful enhancement of democracy. If we take that approach—it is the only one we can properly take in a democratic society—it is axiomatic that the House of Lords will have to be principally an elected Chamber. It must be an elected Chamber. No other solution that has been put forward could command the legitimacy that the Chamber must have if it is properly to fulfil its functions.
Mr. Swayne: I ask my hon. Friend to extend that principle. Will he accept that apostolic succession is a form of election in a purer and more ancient sense, and it is highly desirable that it should be preserved in the new system that he is developing?
Mr. Grieve: I am not sure that I feel wholly qualified to comment on the apostolic succession. On the basic issue of the form that the upper House must take, I am convinced that election is the only solution and the only one that the electorate will accept. There are many ways in which that can be achieved, and I am certainly willing to consider a form of proportional representation.
For the reasons eloquently stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), there is no great philosophical debate about whether the system should be first past the post or proportional representation—it is a matter of practicality. I believe it is essential that we preserve the first-past-the-post system in this place. However, for a revising Chamber, in which perhaps no members of the Executive will sit, I have no objection to the idea of selection through some form of proportional representation.
We could have a rotating Chamber. One third of Members could have fixed terms of considerable length—nine or 10 years has been suggested—and others could have single terms. In those circumstances, I believe that we can create a vibrant second Chamber that has the capacity to revise legislation, to hold the Government to account, to generate its own legislation when the Government do not have time to do so, and to call a halt in certain circumstances unless a referendum were held. That would be a powerful enhancement of democracy.
I disagree entirely with the comments of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) that the manifesto somehow confers great legitimacy on political parties,

735
which entitles them to ride roughshod over minority views during their period in office—especially when one considers that opinions often change. I was struck by the hon. Gentleman's failure to mention that what appears in a manifesto often does not reach the statute book. Is that omission so shameful that we should insist that every policy in the manifesto becomes legislation and that Governments cannot change their mind? Why on earth should we always allow Governments to have it their own way?
I do not have time to develop all my arguments, but I wish to touch on a matter that I raised by way of several interventions. I have always accepted that a purely elected system has one considerable drawback: the loss of the independent element in the form of those who have a great deal to contribute but will not necessarily be willing to stand for election.
It has been said that a great strength of the upper House is its ability to involve in political discussions and policy formulation appointed and hereditary peers who have no party political affiliations, who would not stand for election and who do not wish to wear the label of any political party. If we are to go down the road of electing members to the second Chamber, the greatest drawback will be the possibility a producing a replica of this place.
I have an open mind about this issue, but I do not wish to see appointed peers or Members of the House of Lords. The exercise of prime ministerial patronage is a deeply corrupting process. I was fascinated to hear the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) criticise the sale of hereditary peerages when the appointed system has its own inherent corruptions that many Labour Members appear happy to see continue.
I believe that there is mileage in considering the notion that if we are to have non-elected Members of the House of Lords, they should be co-opted by elected Members. Dozens of bodies and organisations up and down the land both co-opt and elect members. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) argued that, in such circumstances, the party with the majority would co-opt its own placemen to supplement its numbers. That is not, however, likely to happen because there are two ways in which it can be prevented. First, if there is a system of proportional representation, it is unlikely that any party will have a majority to bring in its placemen because there will have to be a measure of agreement with others about who should enter the Chamber. Secondly, there is absolutely no reason why, in framing legislation, the House should not introduce a clause stating that the co-option should be done by two-thirds majority.
We belittle the upper House and its capacity as an elected Chamber to perform a role different from our own if we think that the views of its Members will be dominated by party political considerations. If we frame the legislation properly, we can allow those Members to carry out the co-option of possibly a quarter or even a third of their number to enable them to bring into the upper House for a similar period those who are willing to serve and have a contribution to make. If we are considering having unelected Members, that is the only way in which a reasonable level of legitimacy can be conferred. I should be prepared to consider and back that proposal because it has merit, and would have merit with the electorate.
736
I turn now to the point that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who asked me about apostolic succession. There are two groups within the upper House who currently come from what can only be described as a slightly corporatist background: the first is the bishops and the other is the Law Lords.
I have great regard for the presence of the Law Lords in the upper House because it significantly enhances the quality of debate there and the whole approach and ethos by marrying, at the top end, the legislature and the judiciary. I do not believe in the separation of powers. One of this country's unique features is the extraordinary way in which we have maintained such links and the fact that they have been of benefit. Given the small number of seats involved, I would be willing to make an exception for the Law Lords and allow them to remain in the upper House by virtue of their office.
I regret to have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West that I have rather more serious doubts in respect of the bishops. There should be representation of religious organisations and organised religion, but that should be achieved by the co-option process that I have suggested rather than by enshrining in legislation a place for those of a particular denomination.
I could go on at great length on a large number of topics, but I shall refrain from doing so. I shall conclude by addressing the corporatist aspects of the debate. Frankly, I was shocked to hear some hon. Members suggest that Members of the upper House should be drawn from interest groups. That was a popular notion and may even have been popular with Churchill at the turn of the century. At that time, I regret to tell the House, some fascist notions had a certain degree of popularity and continued until, thankfully, they disappeared in the 1930s. Until then, the Webbs and many socialists were interested in those ideas. They are very cosy; they relate to the setting up of corporate groups that have interests that are exclusive to themselves and at variance with others outside.
Nobody has yet explained to me what happens to what I suppose might have been described as the lumpen proletariat, who are not supposed to form part of any interest group at all. Frankly, I am horrified that a democratic body should even be contemplating having an interest in those structures. I say to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) that although such structures may well work in Ireland because it is a small country, they are treated as archaic and they cause embarrassment to those who know the origins of the idea. It originated in an interest in fascism in the Republic of Ireland.
I see that 9.30 pm is approaching, so I shall obey the time constraint.
Mr. Hogg: The coach is at the door.
Mr. Grieve: Indeed; I shall respect that.
I urge the House to bear in mind the fact that only a primarily elected second Chamber will command the legitimacy required to provide the necessary scrutiny of legislation.
9.30 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I should make two brief apologies. First, I apologise to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). I had hoped that he might have just a minute or two in which to speak. Secondly, I apologise to the House in general because, as the Minister and I agreed to cut our winding-up speeches from 20 minutes to 15, I fear that it will not be possible to give way if one is to try to deal with all 15 Back-Bench speeches. I greatly regret that because, as most hon. Members present know, I rather enjoy interventions.
I suppose that one should begin by saying that we would not have started from here. We do not believe that the Government have handled this issue well. The royal commission should have been established two years ago. In fact, the debate should have taken place at roughly the same time as those on the White Papers on devolution in the summer of 1997. If that had been so, we would perhaps have been able to make a more logical progression towards reform of the second Chamber.
But we must be where we are. We have had a good debate in what one must acknowledge is a thin House. Nevertheless, 15 Back-Bench speeches have been made—all of them thoughtful and stimulating, and some of them quite amusing. It is wonderful to hear ex-Ministers speak. We listened to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and my right hon. and buccaneering Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). With the constraints of office removed from them all, they were able to talk about holding to account, when no Ministers were more tyrannical than they were. There is more joy in the House of Commons over one ex-Minister who repenteth than over 90 and nine others.
I believe that the Leader of the Opposition has the right to take some credit for establishing the Mackay commission. It is right that its extremely thoughtful document should have been submitted to the royal commission as part of our submission. It is right—indeed, it would be grossly discourteous if we did otherwise—to give ample time for discussion in our party of the two alternatives, as well as the others, before coming to a definitive conclusion. As we called for the establishment of the royal commission, and much as we regret the tardy implementation of that policy, it would be grossly discourteous if we did not await Lord Wakeham's final report before coming to a definitive conclusion. All my remarks in this debate must be against that background.
Of course, I am rather relieved to be able to say that. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said that we needed enormous political will and consensus if we were to move to agreed reform. We have heard the expression of quite a number of political wills, some more enormous than others, but we have certainly not seen any consensus on either side of the House. Several hon. Members have said that they think that stage 1 will last indefinitely. Although we are not here to debate stage 1, I say in parenthesis that it is incumbent on us all to do everything that we can at least to ensure that it works for as long as it lasts, because it will be the second Chamber for the foreseeable future.
Some diverse views have been expressed. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) was the only unicameralist to take part in this debate, although we all
738
know that a number of colleagues on both sides of the House share his view. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made an extraordinarily diverting speech. Towards the end of a most entertaining peroration, he seemed half to advocate a virtual Parliament. I do not quite know what he means by that, although we shall doubtless discover if he develops that idea in speeches and writings.
Various themes have run throughout the debate. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said—and he said it very slowly and deliberately, and was right to do so—that we must remember that we are talking about one Parliament which has two Houses. It is impossible properly to discuss in isolation the powers, functions and composition of one House without having regard to the other House, or the effect that one has upon the other. That was the underlying theme of much of today's debate.
A number of hon. Members talked about the inadequacy of our scrutiny procedures. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) went so far as to call them "shoddy", but I think that we would all accept that they could definitely be improved.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham—picking up on a most admirable speech by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—talked about the problems of holding the Executive to account. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that, if he could recast his speech into an article on how to be a Back Bencher and distribute it on both sides of the House, hon. Members would benefit greatly from it. He has great experience, and was able to demonstrate, going back as far as 30 years, how the independence of Back Benchers is crucial if one is to have an effective Executive.
A supine legislature provides for a bad Executive, and Government Back Benchers should always remember that. It is only by articulating principles and being prepared—as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is so regularly prepared—to speak out that the Executive are kept on their toes. Would that more hon. Members emulated his example.
We had a particularly interesting and thoughtful speech from the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). He is not an advocate of direct elections, but favours a mixed-composition House. He also expressed the very real need for improving our powers of scrutiny, particularly of secondary legislation. He talked about Henry VIII clauses, but I should tell him that I have rather rechristened them as Louis XIV clauses, as the current Government so often seem to think that "L'état c'est moi." However, their predecessor was not entirely without blemish in that regard.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk also talked about the need to improve scrutiny of European legislation, and perhaps to re-examine the revising powers of the House of Lords and the length of time that it should have to delay legislation.
My right hon. Friend was not alone in advocating a non-elected or mixed-composition House. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) made an extremely long speech—28 minutes—on that particular subject. My former hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris)—who is still a friend, but who, in

739
parliamentary terms, can no longer deserve the epithet of hon. Friend—also made an interesting speech on that type of House.
One has to accept, however, that the majority of speeches—particularly those made by Opposition Members—argued for either a wholly or largely directly elected House. That message was quite clear in the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester—who has written, lectured and broadcast so extensively on the subject—and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who made the final Back-Bench speech in the debate. One of the themes that they all took up—as did some of those who argued for a mixed-composition House—was that, in a mixed second Chamber, it would perhaps be advisable not to have Ministers. That point was echoed on both sides of the House.
It is crucial that we should reflect carefully on what the royal commission says; study, analyse and debate its findings; and do so mindful of what has been said in the House in this debate. However, it is crucial to the future of our democracy that we should not rush to judgment, either before or immediately after the royal commission reports. We should consider, as part of our discussion process, all those views, and we have to recognise the strengths and weaknesses in every argument.
We should be honest with each other. I am of a conservative persuasion, but those of us who tend to favour the more cautious, evolutionary approach must beware of the pitfalls of patronage, which have been talked about eloquently by many of my hon. Friends and Labour Members. If there are to be appointed peers, the system of appointment must be beyond the control of party leaders, although it can never be beyond their legitimate influence.
We must recognise that there are many who believe that those arguments are deeply flawed. However, those who propose a radical solution must be aware that a wholly elected Chamber, notwithstanding any transitional stages, would sweep away those who currently serve in the other place.
Mr. Forth: That is the whole idea.
Sir Patrick Cormack: It may be, but it would not be inappropriate to say a word from the Dispatch Box in recognition of the sterling service that the life peers, like the hereditary peers, have performed over the years. It would be churlish not to recognise that there is a great reservoir of talent there: political, academic, industrial, commercial, military—you name it, it is there. To sweep it away without complete regard for what we are doing would be a serious step.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan)—or Easter Island, as was once said—acknowledged that some appointments might be necessary to ensure that there were some independent members. Without some such mechanism, a directly elected House would mean the end of the Cross Benchers. Such a House could also deliver greater power to the party machines than any appointment system, particularly if the elections were held with the crass system that we are to have tomorrow. It would dramatically transform relations
740
between the Houses, leading almost inevitably to the creation of a supreme court and a written constitution. It would also create a situation in which only the Head of State was not elected.
None of those is an insuperable obstacle. All matters are open for discussion. My party has not closed its mind to the option, but we must recognise that there are serious issues to debate. We also have to consider who would seek election to such a body. If its powers remained as the White Paper envisages, there would be little incentive for those of high talent and real ability to seek election. The need to seek election and satisfy constituents would seriously reduce the time that members had for scrutiny. If we are to give United States-style senatorial powers, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst forthrightly advocates, we have to ask what we would be doing in this Chamber and what our relations would be with the other House. All those profound questions have to be addressed.
It is important not to be seduced by arguments of superficial legitimacy. What matters is the system as a whole. No one seriously suggests that, because we are a constitutional monarchy with a non-elected upper House, we are not a proper parliamentary democracy. We are, and for the best part of the past 200 years we have been held up throughout the world as an example of a true parliamentary democracy.
The hon. Member for Harlow used the old cliché about throwing out the baby with the bath water. We have to be careful that we do not demolish the bathroom as well. Out of our deliberations must come a strengthened parliamentary system. We must create two Houses in which the Executive are held properly to account and all legislation—primary, secondary, European, the lot—is thoroughly and properly scrutinised. We must be able to deliver something that is better than the current system. That is our only legitimate aim and that is my definition of legitimacy. Over the next few months, as we wait for Lord Wakeham's commission to report, I ask the House to have as broad a discussion as possible in all our parties. We must face up to the real issues involved, some of which I have tried briefly to refer to this evening.
9.45 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): This debate has been delayed, but it has been well worth waiting for. There have been 18 speakers and, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said earlier, it has been in the nature of a discussion. I have sat through almost all of it and I have learned a great deal. The discussion has helped to crystallise my thinking.
As well as discussion we have had confessions. I was struck by the confession of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) who told us about his life as a Whip. I welcome a sinner who repents. I turn to my colleagues and ask them to look closely at his words and to repent before midnight.
We have also had tutorials. I got slightly alarmed when my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was giving a coaching lesson to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). My hon. Friend is certainly not a clone and giving him tips on how to offer more effective opposition was dangerous.
Anybody who thought that there would be some sort of consensus arising from the debate would have been disappointed. I was struck by the comment of my hon.

741
Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) who said that he hoped the commission would listen to our collective views. I am not sure what our collective views are. Different people have expressed different views. We have heard from unicameralists, those who want an elected second Chamber, those who want an appointed second Chamber and those who want a mixed second Chamber. There has been talk about people being elected to represent communities of interest and that there should be functional representatives and representatives from different parts of the United Kingdom. There has been a good deal of talk, highlighted by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), that the second Chamber should not include Ministers but should have a purely scrutinising and revising role.
What has struck me most about the debate is how self-critical it has been. Hon. Members from both sides of the House have expressed a real desire to check the role of the Executive and to scrutinise legislation more closely. No one has been partisan about that as the views have been expressed on both sides of the Chamber. There has been an understanding that the situation has prevailed for many years and I sensed tonight a real desire for change.
In part answer to the criticism, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) told us to look to ourselves and to use our existing devices and powers to achieve our aim, but other steps can be taken, too. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) mentioned pre-legislative scrutiny. 1 am delighted that that is beginning to happen and that draft Bills are being considered by Select Committees and Special Standing Committees involving Members from both Chambers.
I was struck by the comment of the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) who, as well as talking about information technology and Members pushing buttons, made a telling point about what his constituents want from him. They want to ensure that the services delivered by the Government and their agencies—as he put it—make things better. After all, government is about making things better. The hon. Gentleman also drew attention to the need for Parliament to discuss the issues of the day—not simply to resolve them, but to highlight them and give them air. There is a wider point here. We need to develop the role of the House to consider and check what has been done and how far what has been promised has been achieved. At the moment, we are not particularly good at that.
A number of hon. Members drew attention to the democratic deficit and the desire for closer scrutiny which can be achieved only by increasing powers to the second Chamber. Let me reinforce a point that has been made several times within the debate: we need to look at the powers available to the House of Lords and the powers that are actually used. I believe that that reform will give us an opportunity to codify that and put practices and traditions on a better footing. A reformed upper House will have new confidence. The sign of a good relationship is the ability to fall out but still continue to talk. Reform will give us the opportunity to do just that.
Some have argued for new and increased powers for the second Chamber. However, a more sophisticated and persuasive argument would press the case for different
742
and complementary powers for the second Chamber. A number of suggestions have been made as to what they should be and I anticipate that the royal commission will look at them closely.
It is significant that we are having this debate at all and that we are having it now. Its tone shows that change will happen. The House of Lords Reform Bill is making progress in the upper House. I followed its Committee stage with interest—all seven and a half days of it and all 180 amendments. Its Report stage starts next week. Some of the issues that the House of Lords will be considering have been raised tonight. They include the powers of the House of Lords and its relationship with the Commons, the status of any appointments committee, the size of a reformed House of Lords and the arrangements to govern the relative strengths of the parties within it.
Let me stir it up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said earlier. His neighbour, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, "We would not have started from here". Some of us would reply, "You would not have started at all". We need only look back at the Conservative party campaign guide, the Conservative manifesto and in particular the views expressed by the chairman of the party in his submission to the royal commission last month. He said:
"We did not seek to change the House of Lords",
but the debate has moved forward.
I read the Mackay report and I found it thoughtful and temperate in its approach. It said that many of the powers currently exercised by the House of Lords should be maintained, but that it should not be given any greater powers. I noted that it stressed the primacy of the House of Commons.
We have not had an opportunity to discuss in detail the submission by the Conservative party to the royal commission. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) invited us to get a copy. I tried and it was extremely difficult. I asked for a copy from Conservative Central Office. We wrote and begged for one and it did not come, but today we managed to get a copy of "A Stronger Parliament". Let me refer to some of its contents. The Conservatives wanted at least a directly elected element. They were not attracted to indirect representation from the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. They wanted increasing powers over secondary legislation, no age limit, no quotas, an opening size of around 659 members and a kind of monthly question time. Some of the things in that submission appear to be in contrast to what the noble Lord Mackay has said.
I wish to stress something that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said. We are committed to ensuring that no party has an overall majority in the upper Chamber. I do not accept the disparaging remarks of Opposition Members on either that commitment or on the appointments commission. For the first time ever, we have a Prime Minister who is giving up powers. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may scoff, but I have looked carefully at the appointments made by previous Conservative Prime Ministers, which deserve scrutiny. The royal commission will examine closely the need for parity of parties and the work of the appointments commission.
Along with the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), I have been impressed with the start that the

743
royal commission has made. During the debates, there has been criticism of the timetable. The royal commission has been given a tight timetable—I acknowledge that. Nevertheless, we expect its report around the end of the year. I have been impressed by the commission's desire to gain views from outside the magic political circle. It published a consultation paper which set out the questions that the commission thought needed to be addressed as part of its evidence-gathering. It is available on a web site.
In addition, the commission has been out on the road. I understand that these events have been positively received, despite what some newspaper reports have said about poor attendance. Those who attended felt that it was worth while and that their views were listened to properly. The road shows received extensive coverage in the local media. I was particularly impressed by a double-page spread in the Peterborough Evening Telegraph on 25 May. Not only was the coverage extensive, it was thoughtful, informative and spread the debate to a much wider audience. All of that bodes well for the royal commission's report, which I look forward to reading at the end of the year.
The House of Lords Bill has proved the trigger for change, and I hope and expect that the Bill will complete all its stages shortly. The two-stage approach will prove to be manageable and successful. It is, after all, in our long tradition of gradual change. Some have argued for a big bang approach. However, a manageable approach, taken in stages, will prove to be correct. After a century of debate, we will be able to deliver the goods.
The debate tonight has looked further forward, and I hope that the royal commission will take note of the views expressed. It has a tough timetable to meet, but let me point out to doubters on both sides of the House that the tough timetable is an indication of the Government's good faith and of our intention to seek a proper and fundamental reform of the House of Lords. It is also clear evidence of our desire that, after more than a century of debate, this time that will be achieved.
I conclude with some words from the White Paper, as set out in the executive summary. The commission is
"being asked to report by the end of 1999, to enable the Government to make every effort to ensure that the second stage of reform has been approved by Parliament by the time of the general election."
That remains our firm intention.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Kosovo
10 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I come to the House with some important and welcome news about the situation in Kosovo. At the end of many long and hard hours of discussion and negotiation, General Sir Michael Jackson has announced that he has signed the military technical agreement on behalf of NATO, setting out the detailed conditions for peace in the light of the draft United Nations Security Council resolution.
The agreement sets out in detail how all the Serb forces should conduct a phased, verifiable and orderly withdrawal from Kosovo. It provides, as General Jackson has made clear, an agreed basis for the deployment of an international security force, known as KFOR, to establish a secure environment in Kosovo.
The House will appreciate that this agreement is a major political and military vindication of NATO's policy, of its resolve and of its determination to end the horrific ethnic cleansing conducted by Milosevic and his troops and regime. It will pave the way for the eventual return of the refugees.
We expect that the United Nations Security Council resolution will be passed shortly and that the necessary measures will all be in place for the rapid deployment of KFOR, but I must warn the House that we have been misled by Milosevic before. We have learned not to trust his words and we will need to see his troops on the way out of Kosovo. We will want to see verifiable compliance with the terms of the agreement before allowing NATO to suspend the bombing campaign.
That is up to Milosevic. For our part, we look forward to being able to move to the next and very demanding stage and to the enormous challenges that lie ahead. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, there is now a huge job to be done as the Serb forces go out, the international force goes in and we get the refugees home. We are ready for that task and British forces will be among the first to cross the border into Kosovo. All the House will, I am sure, be proud of that effort and join me in wishing them and their NATO allies every success in the difficult weeks and months ahead.
Mr. John Maples: The whole House will be delighted with that news, and we are very grateful to the Secretary of State for coming here tonight to make his statement. This is obviously a major step on the road from war to peace, although, as he said, there are an awful lot of problems still to be overcome.
The talks were obviously extremely difficult and our thanks are due to General Jackson and his staff. Were any concessions made in the course of the talks? Press reports say that the Serbs are being given longer to withdraw than the seven days originally planned. Will that delay the deployment of KFOR, and is there a possibility that both KFOR and the Yugoslav army will be in Kosovo at the same time? Does that present any difficulties? It is also reported that the buffer zone has been reduced from 25 to 5 km. Is that significant to the security of KFOR?
What timing does the Secretary of State expect on the UN Security Council resolution? He said that he hoped that it would be passed soon, but, as I understand it—

745
perhaps he can confirm this—KFOR cannot be deployed into Kosovo until it has been passed and the sequence would be: Serb withdrawal; cessation of bombing; UN Security Council resolution; and then the deployment of KFOR. We would all like to know that KFOR was in a position to deploy as soon as possible. Does he anticipate any difficulties about China's vote in the UN Security Council?
We all understand that the crucial test of success in the operation is the refugees being able to return to their homes, and the crucial ingredient in that is the composition of KFOR. Is there any significance in the fact that a footnote to the terms agreed on 3 June by Ahtisaari and the Serb Government spoke of KFOR having
"NATO at its core"
and a
"unified chain of command under the political direction of the North Atlantic Council"
but that the UN Security Council draft resolution does not go as far as that and mentions NATO only in an annexe referring to "substantial NATO participation"?

I know that such negotiations are difficult and the wording does not always say exactly what will happen, but we would like to feel sure that the force will be able to do its job, because, if it cannot, the refugees will not go home and we will not have succeeded in what the Government and all of us have set out to achieve.
Will the Secretary of State say a word about whether Russian troops will participate in KFOR? It has been said that they will not be under NATO command, but it is important to ensure that Russia does not get a zone of occupation in Kosovo and Russian troops are spread around, as they are in Bosnia.
The difficulties for KFOR, its British component and General Jackson are only just beginning. They have all been sitting waiting for this moment for several months—all of them for several weeks, and General Jackson for several months. I am sure that the whole House wishes them every good fortune in the operations that they are about to undertake.
Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments about the efforts that have led to this evening's news, and especially for his praise for General Mike Jackson. I was with General Jackson yesterday in Macedonia, and I know how much he appreciates the support given by so many people in this country, and on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman and 1, with other Opposition Members, have visited some of our troops in action, and that in itself was a solid illustration of the way in which the British public have stayed with the campaign through all its difficult days, helping us to ensure that we get the refugees back home, and that the strategic threat that Milosevic represents not only to Kosovo but to the wider Balkans, has, as I hope, been seen off.
The hon. Gentleman asked several detailed questions, but he will appreciate that there are many of them that I cannot answer. I have come to report to the House, as I thought proper, at the earliest opportunity, and we have not had the opportunity to see all the technical details.
746
However, the hon. Gentleman can take it from me, and from his own instincts, that General Mike Jackson would not have agreed to any conditions in the military technical agreement that he thought would obstruct his work in getting KFOR in safely and securely to go about its job. Some of the technical questions about timing will be fixed in the agreement, which will have realistically laid down, in a verifiable way, times when all the Serb forces will leave Kosovo.
One of the reasons for the delay in the discussions in the now famous tent was the need to ensure that there would be no security vacuum in Kosovo, and the Serb withdrawal would be synchronised with KFOR's entry. I am sure that we will be satisfied with those provisions.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the timing of the United Nations Security Council resolutions and the like. I am told that the North Atlantic Council, to which the military technical agreement will go, is in session as we speak, and it is possible that the UN Security Council will also meet soon, perhaps even before dawn, so that, simultaneously, each of the features of the agreement—the Ahtisaari-Chernomyrdin agreement, the draft Security Council resolution and the technical military agreement—can all work together to ensure that movement can be as quick as possible.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about a unified chain of command. I can assure him that General Jackson, who signed the military technical agreement tonight as commander of KFOR on behalf of NATO, is under no illusions, and neither are the Serbs, about his role and the way in which he will go about his business.
I cannot answer questions about the role of the Russians, but we all hope that they and the other nations will find a peacekeeping role inside Kosovo. That will be done in the best and most effective way possible. I must correct the hon. Gentleman, in that the Russians who are working with us in Bosnia are not scattered throughout the country; they operate within the structures and they have their own particular structures, which have worked well in the past. They are in one zone in one of the multinational divisions in Bosnia. However, that does not determine the way in which things will happen in future.
At the end of his question, the hon. Gentleman rightly commended our troops for what they have done. I also commend the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the civilian back-up in the Ministry of Defence—people who have done a great deal here. I also commend the other elements inside the Government machine—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has played such a distinguished role in the past few days in securing the draft Security Council resolution, and all those in the Foreign Office, the Cabinet Office and No. 10 who have contributed to ensuring that we reached this position.
I repeat what I said before: despite all the difficulties, traumas and pain involved, the task of the past 75 days may have been the easier part of the job. A difficult job is ahead of us now which will require the same unity of purpose in the alliance and the same grim determination that has seen us through all these days. We must make sure that we deliver on the promise that we all gave—to get the Kosovo refugees back to their homeland again.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The announcement by the Secretary of State is a credit to all

747
those responsible for these matters over the past 75 days, and in particular to General Sir Mike Jackson. Anyone who has ever met him will know that those facing him across the negotiating table faced a very formidable adversary indeed.
Does the Secretary of State understand that, even for those who supported the Government, tonight is an occasion not for triumphalism so much as for relief? As he rightly pointed out, many of the past 78 days have been difficult. Would we not be right to be cautious about the tasks that lie ahead, not least because we have little idea of what NATO forces may find when they penetrate into Kosovo? Apart from the risks posed by booby traps and the indiscriminate use of mines, is it not also possible that untold horrors of brutality remain to be uncovered?
In that regard, will the Secretary of State assure the House that British forces, and the NATO forces in general, will be assiduous in collecting evidence so that those who ought to face the war crimes tribunal in The Hague may be indicted in due course?
Finally, the Secretary of State will be aware that some individual members of the minority community of people of Serbian extraction have displayed conspicuous bravery in attempting to aid their neighbours against those seeking to ethnically cleanse the country in which they lived. Does that not argue very strongly for a clear statement by NATO and the United Nations that any forces deployed in Kosovo will act in an even-handed manner, so that the policy and principles of non-discrimination can be part of the rebuilding of Kosovo?
Mr. Robertson: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has said just now and for his consistent support throughout all the weeks of this campaign. He is right to pay credit to General Jackson. Anyone who has met him—that now includes the Serb generals—is in no doubt about his commitment, determination, skill, clarity and power. The other night, I mentioned to a large number of troops from Britain and other nations that I was very glad to be his boss and not his subordinate. No man is better suited to dealing with the situation that now exists.
I feel no sense of euphoria this evening, and neither do any of the troops or any of the staff in my Department. Yes, there is a cautious relief at what we have got this evening, but there is also, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman noted, an apprehension about what our troops may find in Kosovo. That apprehension arises in part from the physical dangers that the troops may encounter, but our troops are professionally trained to deal with them. However, it stems also from the horrors of the ethnic cleansing that began some time last year.
In regard to those who have committed crimes against humanity, I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we will be resolute in tracking them down. Where we find relevant evidence as the troops go in, we will make sure that the investigators from the international criminal tribunal get access to it before it can be destroyed. Indeed, section 14 of the draft security council resolution demands
"full co-operation of all concerned, including the international security presence, with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia."
The UN has imposed that obligation on all its members.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a valid point about those Serbs who had the courage, decency and bravery to speak out during the campaign against the way
748
in which the Milosevic regime was conducting itself. I hope that the people of Yugoslavia will look to those people for a clear future once Milosevic has gone. Ten per cent. of the population of Kosovo is of Serb extraction. When General Jackson spoke outside that tent in Kumanovo about the even-handedness with which he will do his job, he spoke directly to those people, who have a right to their homeland. If they have acted decently during the campaign, they have every right to stay there and to be treated properly as part of the community. General Jackson will take on that obligation with great pleasure.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: While we welcome the statement, those of us who supported the Government's actions consistently during the past 10 weeks must emphasise that we fully regret every bomb that was dropped and every death that has occurred, as does the Prime Minister. Milosevic, the butcher of his own people in Bosnia and Kosovo, left us no alternative but to take action to end unacceptable ethnic cleansing. Should we ensure that the United Nations and the European Union concentrate on overcoming the major problems that we will find when we enter Kosovo and Yugoslavia? There are problems throughout the region, including in Albania, Romania and Bulgaria, which have been economically weakened by the struggles of the past few weeks.
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend speaks wisely in pointing out that we regret that we had to resort to force. The intransigence of Milosevic, the way in which he conducts his business and the violence with which he has conducted the campaign left us no alternative but to act both for humanitarian reasons, to save the people who were at threat, and for strategic reasons. Milosevic would not have stopped at Kosovo. Vojvodina would have been next and Montenegro after that. Who knows where would have been next—Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia or Albania? That is why British and NATO troops have been engaged. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the commitments that the international community will have to take on. In particular, Europe must rebuild that part of the Balkans and seek greater security for everyone who lives in that troubled part of the world.
Sir John Stanley: Will the number of Serbian troops and paramilitary police who will eventually be allowed back into Kosovo still be measured only in the hundreds?
Mr. Robertson: Yes.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Who will be responsible for civil administration in Kosovo?
The Prime Minister said yesterday that the administration would be guaranteed by the international community, but who will take the responsibility in the coming days?
Given that one of the most difficult problems facing any forces is to distinguish between guerrillas and civilians, how will we disarm the Kosovo Liberation Army both inside and outside Kosovo?
On ethnic cleansing, will measures be taken to protect the 100,000 members of the Serb community, most of whom are innocent and will face the danger of ethnic cleansing? Will any protection be given to the holy places, particularly the monastery of Decani?

749
Finally, as a matter of urgency, will my right hon. Friend set up a radiological survey following the use of depleted uranium munitions by NATO and a further survey of the dioxin poisons in the Danube and elsewhere? Such surveys are very urgent.
Mr. Robertson: But not nearly as urgent as getting back all the people evicted from their homeland. That is our priority. Although several of those matters will have to be treated, they will be handled with their due priority. The answer to my hon. Friend's first question about the civil administration is detailed in paragraph 10 of the draft United Nations Security Council resolution. In the first few days, it is clear that the commander of KFOR will be responsible for law and order until the Secretary-General has appointed an international civil presence in accordance with paragraph 10.
My hon. Friend asked about the disarmament of the KLA. Paragraph 9(b) of the draft resolution calls for the
"demilitarisation of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and other armed Kosovo Albanian groups as required in paragraph 15".
The leaders of the KLA have been on television almost as often as my hon. Friend to make it clear that they, too, will comply with the provisions of the UN Security Council resolution.
My hon. Friend asked about the Serb community inside Kosovo, which I mentioned specifically. It will be another obligation on KFOR in the initial stages, and ultimately the international civil authority, to ensure that all the citizens of Kosovo, whatever their ethnic background, are protected from violence. The holy places will be protected under another provision of the international treaty by the troops who be allowed to return in small numbers for that specific task.
On the environmental impact, certain aspects of Yugoslav life will be affected by the bombing. It was all completely unnecessary. The bombing need not have taken place. Force need not have been used if Milosevic had recognised that the international community would not stand back and watch him butcher people because they happened to be of Albanian extraction.
Sir Peter Emery: Will the Secretary of State accept that not only Front Benchers but Back Benchers wish to praise the work of our troops and of all the NATO troops, especially the Americans, who are not often mentioned but who played such a major role? To put party politics to one side, it is fair to say that one man much enhanced his reputation by being so firm and definite: the Secretary of State for Defence.
Has the Secretary of State heard the statements made in the past 90 minutes by the Serb generals? They are saying that they signed the peace treaty to end the war and implement Milosevic's plans for peace. I have never heard such false nonsense, but that is what is going to be put over.
Mr. Stephen Pound: Alastair Campbell.
Sir Peter Emery: The point is not missed.
750
Will the Secretary of State ensure that the Serb people realise that this agreement could have been accepted by Milosevic months ago, even last October, without the loss of life and terrible damage to property caused by the bombing?
Mr. Robertson: With due modesty, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous comments. I take them as praise for the Department that I have the privilege to lead and for the troops out there on the front line. He is right to commend the United States of America, without which we could not have assembled the air armada, with its precision weaponry, which has brought us to this point and ended the conflict.
My memory is gradually coming back. We cannot all have omnibus memories and I realise that, in my earlier praise, I missed out the Department for International Development. Given the sheer scale of the challenge faced by all of us when the refugees came across the border, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and the officials in her Department acted heroically to ensure that people were treated well.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Serb propaganda. I fear that many people who should have known better listened to the lies told by Milosevic and were taken in by those lies for all too long. I am glad that, eventually, the damage done to the military machine persuaded some people that perhaps they should have considered the truth for a moment. When the truth comes out, many decent people in Serbia will curl up in shame.
Ms Bridget Prentice: That cautious relief referred to by my right hon. Friend at the beginning of his statement is felt not only by Members of the House and by the people of Britain, but by the Kosovan refugees, some of whom have been welcomed to many of our constituencies. The unity of purpose of which he spoke, and which has also been expressed by the shadow Secretary of State for Defence during the past few weeks, must be expressed by all Members of the House. If it is not so done, those in Belgrade will take great succour.
Mr. Robertson: The House speaks with one voice. Milosevic cannot misunderstand the message: the relief that a mission, started with great reluctance, will end, we hope, with the refugees going back to their homes. My hon. Friend is right to point out that many people in this country took to their hearts and to their local communities the refugees from Kosovo, who came so far away from their own homes. Their stories, their personalities and their plight touched the hearts of millions of people throughout the continent and throughout the world. That in itself kept the drive going to ensure that Milosevic did not get away with making them refugees for ever.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The Secretary of State will recall that I consistently supported the use of military action from the earliest stages of this crisis. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his fellow Ministers on their steadiness under political fire. Does he agree that those of us who were concerned about the over-reliance on air power alone may not have been proven wholly wrong, in that what was crucial to the resolution of the crisis—as well as the proper use of air power in context—was the success of our diplomacy in

751
bringing the Russians on side and the threat, which was becoming much clearer, that ground forces would be used if Milosevic did not comply?
Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he rightly says was his consistent support for our efforts. That has been carefully noticed by the public; their consistent support has also been absolutely essential. This evening of all evenings, I do not want to debate the ins and outs of what led us to this point. It was a combination of a series of factors, but, more than any of them, it was the commitment, resolution and unity of an alliance of free nations standing together against an unconscionable evil in our continent. That, if anything, was what led to the success of tonight.
Dr. Lynne Jones: I share my right hon. Friend's wish that the refugees will soon be able to go home. Will he assure the House that every possible assistance will be given to them and to other innocent victims of the war to rebuild their lives? Looking further into the future, has not the conflict in Kosovo highlighted the contradiction between the United Nations charter, with its emphasis on national sovereignty, and international law on human rights? Will the Government set themselves the task of securing international agreement on criteria that, if met, would make it appropriate to undertake international military intervention for humanitarian purposes?
Mr. Robertson: Providing assistance in rebuilding Kosovo and other parts of the Balkans will be a heavy burden on all of us in this and every other country of our continent, but we must do it, because we must not allow Milosevic to get away with the damage that he has done to the community there. Some of the British troops I met yesterday were Royal Engineers, and I was able personally to praise them for their work to create the refugee villages. If people can remember that far back, take the scene on Easter weekend of the ocean of human misery on the border between Macedonia and Kosovo; in 36 hours, those troops created towns in which people had habitation, shelter and food.
My hon. Friend makes an important and significant point about the limits of national sovereignty and the way in which the UN charter appeared until now to countenance the idea that anything went, as long as it happened within the national boundaries of any one country. We have shown that the international community has a bigger conscience and a bigger sense of responsibility than that implies. I dare say that, in the great debates that will take place after the refugees have gone back to their homes, that is one of the issues that will have to be addressed.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I commend the Secretary of State on the role that he has played in the conflict over the past 75 days. I believe that all of our armed services are the most professional in the world, and they have shown themselves to be so in the way in which they have tackled serious difficulties.
However, does the Secretary of State believe that we should be concerned, given that one of the news tapes I read earlier this evening indicated that NATO had watered down several key conditions in order to get agreement with the Yugoslav generals more quickly than would
752
otherwise have been the case? Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that watering down those key conditions might undermine the chances of there being a lasting peace and a stable Yugoslavia?
Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his commendation, but I am only one member of a Government who took on this commitment with the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is in Cologne tonight, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development have, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, played key roles in a team that set out to establish the rule of international law and order, and we had the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House for our action.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have what we consider to be the best troops in the world. That is why the strategic defence review was specifically designed to ensure that, in future and if the country wanted us to, we would be able to do the right thing when there was a humanitarian challenge and a threat to the security of our continent.
None of the conditions that we sought has been watered down. The conditions laid down by NATO at the very beginning—the withdrawal of all Serb troops and paramilitaries; the return of the refugees; the insertion of an international security force; and a political process to take place to secure a future for the people of the region—have all been satisfied by and enshrined in the various agreements of the past few days. The hon. Gentleman should ask himself whether if the conditions had been watered down to the extent our troops might have been endangered, it is likely that General Jackson would have signed up to any agreement.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: The Secretary of State is right to sound a note of caution, for until the Serbian slaughter machine is out of Kosovo and the great majority of the people of Kosovo have returned to their shattered homes and villages, there is no cause for congratulation.
Nevertheless, I offer my thanks to the Secretary of State and his colleagues.
Those of us who have called for the protection of the Albanian majority in Kosovo now call with equal passion for the protection of the Serbian minority. One of the major aims of the peacekeeping force has to be to protect the innocent and decent people of Serbia in Kosovo from any action against them.
Our resolution on war crimes would be put into good effect if within days or weeks Karadzic and Mladic in Bosnia were arrested and brought before the International War Crimes Tribunal. For too long, those mass murderers have been allowed to go free, often passing the peacekeeping forces daily.
At some stage, this Parliament must take stock of the lessons of Yugoslavia. Five or six years ago, the majority on both sides of the House was in favour of appeasement. It would be absurd if we did not remember that tonight. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, were right in recent weeks to ignore those on both sides of the House who called for appeasement. If those right hon. and hon. Members, and they know who they are, had been heeded, the killing of young men would

753
have continued, as would the burning of homes, the rape of young women and girls and the terrible treatment of elders in Kosovo. Those right hon. and hon. Members will soon have to account for what they urged the Government to do. I am thrilled and excited that the Government did the right thing.
Mr. Robertson: Doing the right thing is what we are all about. Some will always disagree, but we live in a democracy. I just wish that people in Yugoslavia had been able to speak out in the way that Members of this House can, without any punishment. They may be criticised, but there has been much criticism in the past few weeks of those of us who took a stand that did not always look as good as it has in the past few days. The consistency and unity that have been the hallmarks of NATO have been an example to all.
My hon. Friend mentioned the protection of the Serb minority and General Jackson made it clear this evening that he will act even-handedly. It is imperative that that message goes out to the Serb minority. We are not in the business of ethnic cleansing, even after the trials and tribulations of the majority population. If we are to recreate a decent society, it must be with all those who call it their homeland being able to live there also.
On war crimes and those who have been indicted for them, I remind my hon. Friend that on Monday British troops acting with the stabilisation force in Bosnia apprehended in Prijedor a man who was indicted for being a shift commander at a concentration camp only a few years ago in Bosnia. He is now, like so many others that we have picked up, in The Hague facing international justice. Eventually, the day will come when all those mentioned by my hon. Friend and others will face the same justice.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will know that I am one of those who have been critical of the United Kingdom's involvement in the war. That notwithstanding, will he accept my personal congratulations to him on the way in which he has discharged the burdens of his office? Looking forward, what are his planning assumptions about the United Kingdom's contributions to KFOR? How many troops, how long will they be deployed and what planning assumptions have been made about cost? What are the likely consequences of a substantial deployment on our ability to mount another operation, for example in north Iraq, and what will be the impact of the cost on other defence objectives, for example the naval modernisation programme?
Mr. Robertson: I recognise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has dissented honourably during the conflict and it is decent of him to say what he said. Others will reflect on the criticisms that they expressed and the forecasts and prophecies they made about what would happen. However, with the greatest respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think that our exchange this evening, based on breaking news at 9 o'clock in the evening, is the time to go into all those details. I encourage him to come back to the House
754
tomorrow afternoon for the debate on defence in the world which will start after business questions, when I will deal with those and many other subjects.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: May I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Government on the critical role that they have played in achieving this result? Does my right hon. Friend believe that, although the situation may remain difficult and dangerous, there are grounds for cautious optimism that we can end this terrible tragedy and bring security to the people of Kosovo and stability to the Balkans?
Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments, and I recall the memorable speech that he made in one of our many debates on this subject. We must look forward, but cautious optimism is all that we should feel at present. There are many tasks ahead.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I should like to take the Secretary of State forward a few weeks. If, after the deployment of troops by the west and Russia, there is a relapse in Milosevic's commitment to the agreement, does the Secretary of State think it is feasible that, with Russian troops on the ground, bombing could be resumed in order to secure Milosevic's compliance? Have there been any discussions with the Russians to deal with such an eventuality? If such negotiations have not taken place, is there not a risk that the Russians could acquire an effective veto on further action to secure Milosevic's compliance?
Mr. Robertson: If there are Russian troops on the ground, British troops will also be on the ground. British, Russian and troops from other NATO countries will be on the ground because the Serbs have withdrawn. As General Jackson made absolutely clear tonight, where appropriate, the air assault could take place over Yugoslavia where much attention has been paid in recent times. That is not being bloodthirsty or bloodcurdling, and I do not seek to humiliate Serbia. However, the Serbs must recognise that they have signed an agreement and that the sanction remains that brought them to the negotiating table in the first place.
Perhaps those who want to talk about Russian vetoes should look carefully at the role played by the Russians in recent days. Mr. Ivanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, was there when we secured the first G8 statement; Mr. Chernomyrdin was instrumental in securing the Belgrade agreement; and Mr. Ivanov was also involved in obtaining the draft Security Council resolution yesterday. I pay a tribute this evening to the Russians and the role that they have played in bringing peace to the Balkans. That is a great indication of how the east and the west can co-operate to ensure that we live in a much safer, more stable and more civilised world.
Fiona Mactaggart: Like most other hon. Members, I begin by congratulating the Secretary of State and all those who have been involved in this process. I look forward to an outcome about which I think all hon. Members are united: the return of the refugees. Is the Secretary of State confident that, as well as the military arrangements to secure Kosovo, there are sufficient arrangements to ensure that the refugees know what is happening? I bet that that group of people is not

755
cautiously optimistic but desperate, over-excited, frightened and worried about whether other villagers will return before they do. Communication with refugees in the camps will be crucial in managing the process and making it work. I seek my right hon. Friend's assurance that the processes will be in place to achieve that objective.
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I agree that we must keep the refugees informed. We have taken this action on their behalf, but that does not mean that they do not have a role to play. We made the refugees a promise—personally and collectively—that we would get them home, and some will be desperate to return, even though they know that the circumstances may be dire and dangerous. I know that it is high on General Jackson's agenda to ensure that communication is right and proper and that people know what is happening. It will take a lot of energy on the part of the international community to ensure that all the interlocking factors work together so that we can get the refugees back home—if we can, before the winter sets in.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: May I say to the Secretary of State that we particularly appreciate his coming to the House tonight at this late hour to make a statement and take questions? Perhaps some of his colleagues could follow his example. It is fair to say that throughout this conflict he has always sought to keep the House informed, which is appreciated.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to be cautious about what lies ahead and to pay tribute to our forces on the ground, particularly General Sir Mike Jackson. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that they face an extremely risky undertaking with land mines having been indiscriminately planted and other possible problems with the Kosovo Liberation Army or dissident forces thereof.
Although the Secretary of State was unable to answer the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and rightly drew attention to tomorrow's debate, he must have had some idea, in the run-up to the agreement, about whether he would need to deploy extra forces. Does he intend to call up Territorial Army reservists? Can he give us an idea of how long he expects our forces to stay out there, given that, for example, some of 5 Airborne Brigade and the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment, which are based in Aldershot, have been on extensive training and other missions and would like to know for how long they are likely to be away?
Mr. Robertson: I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is nobody in the Ministry of Defence who considers 10.46 pm to be late at night, but it is nice to see him here at this late hour. I know that his questions about the Parachute Regiment have absolutely nothing to do with his being the Member for Aldershot. I spoke yesterday to the men of 1 Para and their distinguished commanding officer, Colonel Paul Gibson, at their training camp. They are absolutely raring to go and to do the job for which they have been training so extensively. Yes, that will be risky and dangerous, as I made clear. The men know that and they are trained to deal with such a situation.
By the end of this week, we shall have about 13,000 British troops in Macedonia, ready to go in when General Jackson gives the call. Large numbers of German and
756
French troops are already there. More German, French and Canadian troops are about to land in Greece to go up into Macedonia. The United States marine expeditionary unit is also on its way and will be in theatre.
I cannot say how long people will be there. I cannot say what they will see, and I do not know what they will find when they cross the border into Kosovo. They will do their job and they will come back home as quickly as they can. Those who serve with the allied rapid reaction corps HQ are, of course, usually deployed for six months. Presumably, the clock will start ticking on that six months when the accord is passed, if it is passed, by the North Atlantic Council. Those men will be looking forward to that period of deployment being over, but, at the moment, they look forward to an engagement that will take all the skills, resolution and guts that they so legendarily have.
Mr. Tony Baldry: May I take the Secretary of State back to a comment about the regular reserve and the Territorial Army? Clearly, policing and preserving the peace will require the support and services of many men and women. It will almost certainly require the support of members of the regular reserve and the TA, particularly those with specialist trades and skills. Many of those men and women have already given six months' voluntary service in Bosnia. Against that background, will the Secretary of State assure the House that if he calls on members of the TA to serve in Kosovo, he will use his powers under the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985 to ensure that their occupations and pensions are protected while they are serving in this endeavour?
Mr. Robertson: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's connection with the Territorial Army. We are very conscious of our responsibilities for the regular reserve and the TA. Some 10 per cent. of our forces in Bosnia come from the TA. If we need to deploy reserves and the TA to Kosovo—although that decision will ultimately be mine, the recommendation will come from the forces—we shall bear all the relevant factors very much in mind.
Mr. Christopher Fraser: In the light of this new situation, has the Prime Minister flown out to Kumanovo in Macedonia? If he has not, does he intend to do so?
Mr. Robertson: I was out in Macedonia yesterday. Frankly, the last thing that they need out there are more VIPs descending on them. We can quite effectively send our good wishes to them—and we have, and we will. I know the presence of the Prime Minister in Macedonia was deeply appreciated and had a huge morale-boosting effect not just our troops but on the refugees whom he met. I have gone on a number of visits during this conflict, and—I think—for the very first time in any conflict in which our troops have been engaged, I took Opposition Front Benchers to ensure that our troops knew that not just the Government but the people of this country supported them.
Mr. Bob Russell: I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that the widely felt relief has special significance in garrison towns. I follow the comments of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) in saying that there are already troops

757
from Colchester garrison in Macedonia. Indeed, I understand that several hundred more will be going. Does the Secretary of State agree that overstretch will be even more critical? If the short term becomes the long term, as it did in Bosnia, is there not a strong case for encouraging more of our European allies to relieve the pressures in Bosnia, so that British troops are not overstretched throughout the Balkans?
Mr. Robertson: Yes is the answer. We will ensure that all the European countries involved make a contribution. That is why I pay tribute to all those who have been engaged: the American pilots who have flown two thirds of the planes in the air campaign, the large number of NATO European ships in the naval presence and the thousands of European troops. They all have a role to play. The hon. Gentleman's presence as the representative of a garrison town reminds me to do one thing that I should have done a long time ago: pay a tribute to the families of the service personnel involved, who sit at home, worrying and concerned. They are making a huge contribution and a great sacrifice on behalf of the country. They are all hugely important. We think of them all the time. They are very much part and parcel of whatever policy we have for the armed forces.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)),
That—

(1) the matter of the consultation document 'Life Long Learning—a new Learning Culture for All' be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee for its consideration;

(2) at the sitting on Thursday 24th June, the Committee shall take questions for oral answer and shall then consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above;

(3) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a Motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(5).—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FUNCTIONS AND STANDARDS) BILL
Ordered,
That Mr. Robin Corbett be discharged from the Committee on the draft Local Government (Functions and Standards) Bill and Mr. John Smith be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dowd.]

PETITION

  Health Food Products
  10.53 pm
  Valerie Davey: As sometimes happens in this House, we go from a matter of international magnitude to one of national and local detail.
  I am pleased to present the petition of the Health Food Manufacturers Association on behalf of 1,780 petitioners who live in Bristol, West and/or use one of the excellent health food stores in the constituency.
  The petition declares:
  Government proposals would give the Medicines Control Agency virtually unlimited powers to classify safe products as medicines. This would mean that the MCA could remove at a stroke products that are vital to the good health of many consumers and are currently sold under food law. This is an abuse of the democratic process and a denial of freedom of choice.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Department of Health to reconsider the proposals and to introduce an immediate moratorium preventing the MCA from declaring these safe products to be medicines except on the grounds of illegal claims or safety and, further, to introduce new legislation appropriate to the special needs of safe, natural health products.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Media Standards
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  10.54 pm
  Mr. George Galloway: I must declare an interest, although I do so with some trepidation in the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting. As the Register of Members' Interests shows, I myself am a journalist—a newspaper columnist, nowadays on The Mail on Sunday and the Catholic newspaper Flourish. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept it from me that, on at least one of those newspapers, my own views are not always necessarily the views of the management.
  I should start by saying what my speech is not about, for there has been some media interest in that. It is not about outlining a litany of complaints about my own experiences with the media; there is not enough time for that. Regardless, I know the way to the libel courts, and am represented by Davenport Lyons-the legendary "Sue, Grabbit and Runne" of Private Eye fame. Besides, some of those experiences are more hurtful than others.
  My last close encounter with the gutter press consisted of a 6 ft-tall young Cuban mulatta, purchased by the News of the World to say—in colour, on pages 1, 2 and 3—that I was
  "good looking & had a good body for my age & and did it with her five times a night under the Caribbean stars."
  That is the type of slander that some of us have to put up with.
  Neither is my speech about making a case against self-regulation, for Government intervention, for new legislation on privacy, or about anything like that. I am one of the very few surviving opponents of the last attempt at a privacy law—which was piloted by the least plausible advocate of such a thing, the former Member for Winchester, Mr. John Browne.
  I have not changed my mind since then about the fact that there is no editor so venal that I should prefer to see a Minister—any Minister of any Government-sitting in that editor's chair, or making his or her editorial decisions. I have visited too many countries where the deadest hand on freedom is that of the censor—the Minister of Information, the proverbial "Minister for Truth"to wish to see us go even an inch down that road.
  It is, moreover, not true that the current arrangements, in the form of the Press Complaints Commission, are a failure. In fact, in the first decade of the PCC's existence, four fifths of all complaints have been resolved bilaterally between newspaper and complainant. While, of course, there can always be improvements—I have some suggestions to make in that regard—our system of self-regulation is currently being studied by many people around the world who are trying to balance the precious, indeed fundamental, freedom of the press with the need to avoid cruel and gratuitous intrusion. Tomorrow, at the Law Society, in Chancery lane, representatives of 20 press councils, from Estonia to Iceland, will be conferring on the best way of reconciling those matters, and will very much use the British experience as a suitable case for study.
  Lately, several controversies have clearly generated a great deal of heat. However, there has been more heat than light. In the murk, some people have suggested changes to
  760
  the self-regulatory framework which, while superficially attractive, do not really stand up to scrutiny. Some people, including noble Friends in the other place, seem to favour a "proactive PCC", which could trigger investigations itself, rather than being dependent on an alleged victim of abuse of the code making a complaint. However, that in itself could be an intrusion.
  Many people—such as the comedian Harry Enfield, whose honeymoon was crudely interrupted by British tabloid paparazzi; or my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), whose holiday was similarly marred—despite their justifiable anger, have no wish to prolong their agony or widen the audience for their embarrassment by making a complaint. Moreover, it would clearly represent a type of double jeopardy if the PCC, acting in what it thought was the public good, were to ride unasked to their defence. Regardless, such people could well be on their way to the libel courts, or have others reasons why they do not wish to become a "proactive PCC" cause celebre.
  A more engaged PCC more closely in tune with the industry and public attitudes and with a more hands-on chairman would be a good idea. I mean no disrespect to Lord Wakeham when I say that he is rather a figure from another age. Given that, among many other duties, he heads the royal commission investigating the future shape of the upper House of the British Parliament, he must be one of the country's busiest men. It would be preferable to have someone more steeped in the argot of the British press who would have more of a common and political touch, from which the standing of the PCC in the country would benefit.
  There is also a case to answer in that some victims of abuse of the code are afraid to register a complaint for fear that the tabloids will vindictively pursue them. The code needs adjusting to make it clear that any such vindictive pursuit of a complainant would seriously exacerbate a newspaper's position and would be the subject of more serious sanction.
  Similarly, the code needs to take account of the recidivist behaviour of some newspapers under some editors. It is surely unacceptable for breach after breach of the code to occur, with punishment no more severe than the publication of an adjudication tucked away on page 32 of the paper. The PCC should adopt a "three strikes and you're out" approach. If a newspaper was found on a second occasion in 12 months to have broken the code to which it had voluntarily subscribed, it should be required to publish the adjudication on the front page with an apology from the proprietor and the editor. If a third breach occurred within 12 months—we should remember that each editor is required in their contract of employment to comply with the code—it should be incumbent on the proprietor to dismiss the editor.
  The code and the PCC are most seriously falling short of public expectation in what can loosely be described as entrapment. There are all kinds of entrapment for all kinds of purposes. Few would dispute that The Sunday Times was justified in its entrapment of Members of this House found to be accepting cash payments for asking parliamentary questions, or that The Guardian was right to deploy a cod fax to help get to the bottom of who really paid Jonathan Aitken's hotel bill at the Ritz. Not all subterfuge should be frowned on, but there must be a clear and undeniable public interest that overrides most people's natural queasiness about such tactics. Above all,

  761
  there must be no active commissioning of wrong-doing that would not otherwise have taken place. As we shall see, that is by no means always the case.
  I shall concentrate on one newspaper—the aforementioned News of the World—and two cases in particular. One involves a minor celebrity who is now a guest of Her Majesty's prison service. The other involves a previously unknown couple, Sue and Bob, the owners of a two-star naturist English boarding house. Many of us must have been intrigued over the years about whether the famously intrepid News of the World investigators really made their excuses and left the scenes of depravity that they were helpfully bringing to our attention. Sue and Bob, armed with audio and visual aids, answered that question, at least as far as the chief crime reporter of the News of the World, Neville Thurlbeck, was concerned. After he had plastered on a double-page spread a story entitled "The guesthouse where all rooms come with en suite pervert", he was unmasked by the couple's videotape as the pervert who badgered, begged and finally bribed Bob and Sue into allowing him to indulge in a rather pathetic act of onanism at the foot of their bed.
  Despite the News of the World being caught bang to rights in that case, the PCC refused even to consider the couple's complaint in one of its most spineless failures of the decade. The presence on the board of the PCC of Mr. Phil Hall, the editor of the News of the World, scarcely persuaded those two private citizens that self-regulation would do it for them.
  Even more serious is the case of the minor television actor, John Alford, from the series "London's Burning". He is currently serving a prison sentence for supplying 2g of cocaine, having been entrapped by the chief investigative editor of the News of the World, Mahzer Mahmood. Mahmood posed, as is his habit, as an Arab prince with a retinue of followers. I know some Arab princes—some are my friends—and Mahzer Mahmood is no Arab prince. He was dismissed by The Sunday Times for dishonesty and for seeking to persuade workmates to behave dishonestly in order to cover up his misdemeanours. Nevertheless, that man is given apparently unlimited budgets to trap a long succession of dupes, from the directors of Newcastle United football club to young and greedy actors such as John Alford.
  Mahmood took a suite in the Savoy hotel and dressed in the clothes of a prince of Arabia. For more than two weeks, he seduced Alford, chauffeuring him around in his hired Rolls-Royce and laying before him the mirage of the riches of Croesus, which could be his just for being the prince's friend and appearing at a non-existent festival in the Gulf.
  Finally, when he had Alford eating out of his hand, he popped the question and asked if Alford knew where he could get some cocaine. As Alford said in his speech from the dock, he would never have dreamed of making this transaction if his friend, the Arab prince, whom he thought was going to be the making of him, had not asked him to do so. He said, and he was surely right, that the News of the World had manufactured the crime rather than reported it. Mahmood got his story and young Alford got a jail sentence and the ruination of his professional and, who knows, even his personal life.
  762
  Surely the entrapment of people into committing offences is a matter for the criminal law and a matter for the Government to consider seriously. The law was an ass when it imprisoned John Alford, and justice was not done.
  Of course, there is a great deal of hypocrisy in the press about the taking of recreational drugs. I could, if I were minded, draw the House's attention to important luminaries of the fourth estate who are no strangers to such illicit substances. There is something especially piquant about Mr. Murdoch's newspapers' resorting to these extraordinary lengths to prove that the most obscure individuals, whom they ludicrously dub as "role models", indulge themselves in this way.
  Let me tell the House about Mr. Matthew Freud. I understand that he is now a successful public relations man and friend of the famous. Back in the 1980s, Mr. Freud found himself in the dog house, in front of a judge who fined him £500 and told him he was a "very foolish young man" for supplying 3.19g of a powder containing cocaine.
  Mr. Murdoch, nowadays a papal knight, must have discovered the importance of penitence and redemption, at least as it affects his family. The same Mr. Freud is now the consort and live-in lover of Miss Elizabeth Murdoch who will one day inherit the very same News of the World in which princes of the press such as Mahzer Mahmood get high, laying in wait for fools whom they can entrap into supplying them with their powders.
  In conclusion, I turn to the latest and arguably the greatest blunder by the tabloids—the sensational splash of seaside pictures of Sophie Rhys-Jones. That gross and tasteless act, in this case by another of Mr. Murdoch's flagships, The Sun, was a good old-fashioned story of personal betrayal, chequebook journalism and grotesque editorial misjudgment.
  Far from having a melancholy ending, I believe that the humiliating climbdown by the editor of The Sun, David Yelland, was a triumph of the most important and safest form of sanction against unworthy journalism: the power of the people. The wave of angry public disapproval and the concentrated fire of the more respectable press secured quick and spectacular justice for the blameless Miss Rhys-Jones. People voting with their feet and their pockets against such journalism will always be the way of dragging the rudest red-top papers back out of the gutter.
  11.11 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) on securing tonight's debate. I note that he says that the views of the newspapers for which he writes do not always coincide with his own. He also said that he would not dwell on his own experience at the hands of the media because we did not have sufficient time. For the same reason, I will not dwell on my experience of the media.
  I am not the first Minister to respond to a debate in the House on the issue and I am sure that I will not be the last. I am only sorry that there are not more members of the press present to hear tonight's important debate.
  Recent behaviour of certain sections of the press has provoked concerns in the House and renewed, in some quarters, calls for greater controls on the press. I also

  763
  know that many in the House are of the view that sections of the press have recently gone way beyond the spirit and the letter of the Press Complaints Commission's code of practice, and I have some sympathy with those views. However, my hon. Friend will agree that we must avoid knee-jerk responses. As we have all too often seen in the past, such responses rarely, if ever, result in an effective solution to a perceived problem.
  We should also remind ourselves that a free press remains the cornerstone of our democracy. Quite simply, we cannot have a free democratic society without a free press.
  We can justifiably be proud of a long tradition of press freedom in this country. Since 1696, there has been no Executive intervention in the content of newspapers in peacetime. Newspapers are, and should remain, independent of government. It should be for the press to decide what and what not to publish, subject to the general law.
  The press has frequently demonstrated that it is a powerful force for good in our society and the Government are committed to preserving the freedom necessary for it to fulfil its proper role. That is why we have repeatedly stated our preference for self-regulation—a position that my hon. Friend will support. We have expressed reluctance to introduce statutory regulation or a privacy law. At present, the Government have no plans, nor see any pressing reason, to introduce legislation to regulate the press.
  Under the present system of self-regulation, the Press Complaints Commission seeks to conciliate between those who are aggrieved about alleged press abuses and the newspaper concerned, and, where that fails, to adjudicate according to a code of practice that has been agreed by the newspaper and magazine industry.
  The code, to which my hon. Friend referred, covers many different issues, including intrusion into privacy, intrusion into grief or shock, opportunity to reply, payment for articles and, above all, inaccuracy. The PCC published a revised code of practice on 19 December 1997, with increased safeguards against intrusion and harassment, and protections for children. Most of the matters are not covered by the criminal or civil law, and thus the present arrangements give people an avenue of complaint that would not otherwise be available and which is fairly rapid and free. It is important to note that the great majority of those who complain to the PCC are satisfied with the outcome.
  That is not to say that the Government believe that self-regulation is working perfectly. The Government expect the press to abide by the rules and commitments enshrined in the code of practice, and we continue to review the effectiveness of press self-regulation by monitoring alleged press abuses and the PCC's handling of them.
  764
  Ministers and my officials are in regular contact with the PCC to discuss a number of issues. The Government have repeatedly stated our desire to see further improvements to self-regulation. We have no hesitation in suggesting such improvements to both the PCC's operations and the code, as and when we think necessary. I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to that process.
  From my discussions with the noble Lord Wakeham, I know that he welcomes this continuing dialogue, and he is always open to considering suggested improvements to the code. However, we should recognise that any improvements are likely to be most effective if they are made with the general consent of the press. I do not underestimate the difficulty of achieving that.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I recognise that the behaviour of certain elements of the press has, in recent weeks, caused concern and distress to many—my hon. Friend mentioned some of those instances—but I do not believe that that should lead us to conclude that the time for statutory regulation is right. In my view, self-regulation continues to be the best way in which to ensure high editorial standards in this country. Let us not forget that, despite the occasional lapse, the history of the press over the last decade or so has been, by and large, one of continued responsible improvement.
  The Government continue to be committed to monitoring the effectiveness of the current self-regulatory system. I thank my hon. Friend again for his suggestions and comments on the code, breaches of the code and possible punishment for such breaches, and I thank him particularly for what he says about entrapment, about which there has been great concern in recent weeks.
  I noted with interest what my hon. Friend said about whether the PCC should be able to initiate its own investigations without a complaint being made to it, and he made a valid point in support of the present system. Recent events will feed into the continuing monitoring process that the Government will carry out in terms of the effectiveness of the system. In my opinion, the basic rationale for self-regulation has not been damaged by those recent events.
  I conclude by quoting from an editorial in The Observer on 30 May, which said:
  "A free press, warts and all, is an indispensable component of democracy. If we some saw some warts last week, don't forget that wider truth."
  In what has been a difficult few weeks for the press, that is a sentiment with which I hope most hon. Members can concur. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I assure him that we will take note of everything that he said during the debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the agreement which he has negotiated for the management of the farm-scale trials of genetically modified crops in 1999. [85924]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]All crops in the farm-scale evaluations are being grown in compliance with the conditions of the consents issued under Part B or Part C of Directive 90/220/EEC and, in addition, in accordance with the SCIMAC (Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops) guidelines. The SCIMAC code of practice together with the associated guidelines for growing newly developed herbicide tolerant crops was published by SCIMAC on 21 May 1999 and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  National Speed Policy
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's national speed policy review; [86053]

  (2) when the national speed policy review is to be concluded; when the Government plan to announce the findings of the national speed policy review; and when the Government plan to announce their proposals for changes to speed limits. [86055]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The speed policy review was launched in October 1998. This is considering how best policy can reflect the aims of the integrated transport policy white paper, whilst continuing to meet our road safety objectives. In its first stage the review is examining existing research and reviewing current practice and legislation. The second stage is now underway involving people and organisations outside government that can offer an informed opinion. The final stage will draw conclusions before a report is prepared for Ministers.

  The review will consider all aspects of speed management, including the role of speed limits. It is expected to be completed by the Autumn, when its findings will be published.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many and what proportion of settlements of less than 3,000 in population have (i) no signed speed restrictions and (ii) a maximum speed limit of(a) 40 mph, (b) 30 mph and (c) 20 mph. [86114]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is not held centrally as Local Traffic Authorities are responsible for setting speed limits on their roads.
  320
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many respondents to the consultation document, "Developing an Integrated Transport Policy: An Invitation to Contribute", recommended lower speed limits. [86054]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Of the 7,300 responses to the consultation document, "Developing an Integrated Transport Policy: An Invitation to Contribute", 827 recommended increased traffic calming measures and lower speed limits.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations the Government have received in the course of the national speed policy review on the need to reduce speed limits in country lanes and in villages. [86056]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A wide range of views on this issue have been received, both for and against the need to reduce such speed limits.

  Refrigerants
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to change departmental refrigeration and air-conditioning systems to operate on not-in-kind refrigerants. [86164]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is DETR policy, in accordance with the model framework for greening government operations, not to purchase substances that contain CFCs or HCFCs where suitable alternatives exist. The specifications for the build and refurbishment of Eland and Ashdown House Victoria specifically excluded the use of ozone depleting gases.

  Drink-driving
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many road users were killed in drink-drive related accidents during the last year for which figures are available. [85690]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In 1997, the most recent year for which estimates of drink-drive accidents are available, there were an estimated 550 alcohol-related road deaths (or fatalities). This is a revision of the provisional estimate of 540, based on more limited data, which was published in "Road Accidents Great Britain:1997".

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the main issues addressed in responses to his Department's consultation on "Combating Drinking and Driving: Next Steps". [85689]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Consultees made comments across the range of issues addressed in the consultation paper. Those issues most frequently raised were, in descending order, the lowering of the blood alcohol limit, police breath testing powers, penalties for a drink-drive limit and self-test breathalysers.

  British Rail Land (Battersea)
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when a decision will be made on the sale of British Rail land to the Dogs' Home, Battersea.[86241]
  321
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The British Railways Board was given permission on 20 May to dispose of its surplus land at Battersea to the Dogs' Home.

  Energy Efficiency
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many homes have benefited from Government-sponsored programmes of energy efficiency in each year since their establishment. [86206]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department provides grants for improving the energy efficiency of homes through the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme and also funds the grant programmes operated by the Energy Saving Trust. The number of homes helped through each are detailed.

  Homes improved through the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme

  Year

  Number of homes improved

  1991–92

  167,849

  1992–93

  204,130

  1993–94

  270,148

  1994–95

  449,902

  1995–96

  623,963

  1996–97

  415,422

  1997–98

  419,935

  1998–99

  404,960

  Homes improved through DETR funded programmes operated by the Energy Saving Trust

  Programme

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Energy Efficiency Advice Centre

  109,954

  166,744

  181,599

  HECA Action1

  37

  31

  30

  Energy Service Companies1

  2

  7

  20

  Raising the Standard

  6,000

  9,000

  12,110

  Heating Controls

  16,725

  17,500

  n/a

  Cavity Wall Insulation

  30,000

  35,000

  22,747

  Pensioners Energy Plan

  48

  65

  25

  Total

  162,766

  228,347

  216,531

  1Grants to organisations rather than individual households

  The energy efficiency of many homes has also been improved through earlier Government programmes; the introduction of energy efficiency requirements within building regulations; and from broader programmes to promote energy efficiency including the Market Transformation Strategy and the high profile "Are You Doing Your Bit" campaign.

  At the same time, schemes developed as part of the Standards of Performance set by the Director General for Electricity have also improved the energy efficiency of homes.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for introducing(a) energy efficiency and (b) renewable energy strategies at regional level. [86044]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]Our recent White Paper on sustainable development, "A better quality of life", announced that we wish to see sustainable development frameworks prepared in each English region by the end of 2000. We will be issuing guidance on the content and preparation of such frameworks. Renewable energy and energy efficiency are among the subjects which we are considering for inclusion in the frameworks.322
  Additionally, as indicated in the consultation paper, "New and Renewable Energy: Prospects for the 21 Century", recently published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, renewable energy is a topic we will be considering in the context of our new proposals for Regional Planning Guidance, on which we have been consulting.

  Petrol
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent scientific evidence he has evaluated concerning the use of methyl teritary butyl ether in petrol in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [85870]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Use of Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in petrol can reduce exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide by 25 per cent. and hydrocarbons by 15 per cent. and has contributed to improvements in air quality through reducing the level of these pollutants. In response to concerns about possible contamination of groundwater by MTBE the Environment Agency conducted a pilot study in the Stour catchment to inform the design of future groundwater monitoring. No MTBE was detected in that catchment but MTBE will be included in a major R&D study commissioned by the Agency into the fate, transport and natural attenuation of chemicals in the sub-surface and groundwater environment. The study, which commences this week, will take some two years to complete.

  Empty Dwellings
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes to the council tax he intends to make to encourage owners of long-term empty dwellings to bring them back into use. [86487]

  Ms Armstrong
  One of the reasons why there is a hard core of unused empty dwellings is that the cost of owning them is relatively low. At present, there is no council tax at all for the owners of dwellings which require or are undergoing major repair works or structural alterations. Long-term empty properties create extra costs for councils because they can encourage vandalism, crime, accumulation of rubbish, vermin and a general nuisance. Exempt from council tax, the owners do not make a contribution towards these costs and they also benefit from other locally provided services like police and fire services.

  The Government do not believe this is justified where a dwelling has been exempt for more than a year. We have, therefore, amended the council tax regulations so that from 1 April 2000, any dwelling in England and Wales requiring or undergoing major repair works or structural alterations which has been exempt for more than a year, will be subject to the standard 50 per cent. council tax attracted by other unoccupied dwellings.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to provide financial support to English local authorities and to the Environment Agency to meet the capital costs of dealing with contaminated land. [86489]
  323
  Mr. Meale
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced on 22 July 1998 that £15 million would be available for this financial year, and each of the next two financial years. The Contaminated Land Supplementary Credit Approval programme provides support for English local authorities for the capital costs they incur in dealing with contaminated land. The programme also supports, in the form of additional grant-in-aid, the Environment Agency where it is carrying out works to deal with water pollution caused by contaminated land. This funding is in addition to the £50 million over the next three years to help local authorities with their responsibilities under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (inserted by section 57 of the Environment Act 1995) and to separate funds made available through Single Regeneration Budget and the Regional Development Agencies for regeneration projects.

  Authorities with on-going contractual commitments for projects funded in previous years have already received notification that support will continue to be available this year. I have agreed the programme for new projects to start this year and my Department has written today to the successful authorities and to the Environment Agency notifying them of the financial allocations which are being made.

  The Department will discuss the other bids with the authorities concerned and expects to make some further allocations. It will also decide new bids when they are received.

  The following table sets out the allocations which have been made so far this current financial year.

  Local Authorities

  Number of sites

  Total allocation(£)

  Ashford BC

  1

  36,500

  Bexley LB

  1

  50,000

  Blackburn/Darwen BC

  2

  40,000

  Bolton MBC

  1

  20,000

  Bristol City

  1

  25,697

  Bury MBC

  1

  5,500

  Calderdale MBC

  1

  20,000

  Chorley BC

  1

  196,000

  Crawley BC

  1

  355,500

  Croydon LB

  5

  79,000

  Cumbria CC

  1

  786,215

  Darlington BC

  1

  31,000

  Devon CC

  5

  775,500

  Dudley MBC

  4

  335,070

  Durham CC

  3

  56,500

  East Sussex CC

  2

  282,696

  Essex CC

  3

  140,500

  Gateshead MBC

  2

  1,205,000

  Gedling BC

  1

  14,000

  Gravesham BC

  1

  11,300

  £000

  Approved allocation for 1998–99

  Provisional outturn for 1998–99

  Present approved allocation for 1999–2000

  Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and its subsidiaries

  27.21

  28.77

  29.79

  NI Roads Programme

  145.30

  147.7

  155.6

  324

  Local Authorities

  Number of sites

  Total allocation(£)

  Guildford BC

  4

  35,500

  Hackney LB

  1

  115,000

  Hampshire CC

  1

  35,000

  Herefordshire C

  1

  22,600

  Isle of Wight C

  1

  10,000

  Lancashire CC

  1

  25,000

  Lancaster City

  1

  71,653

  Leicester City

  6

  119,200

  Leicestershire CC

  2

  16,250

  Lewes DC

  1

  10,000

  Merseyside WDA

  2

  320,000

  Middlesbrough BC

  1

  301,000

  Newcastle City

  3

  319,450

  Northamptonshire CC

  2

  408,000

  North East Lincs C

  1

  44,000

  North Lincs C

  1

  1,187,200

  North Somerset C

  1

  18,000

  Northumberland CC

  4

  46,000

  Norwich City

  1

  24,000

  Nottingham City

  1

  304,000

  Oldham MBC

  2

  96,000

  Oxfordshire CC

  2

  392,000

  Plymouth City

  1

  265,085

  Portsmouth City

  1

  400,000

  Preston BC

  1

  266,250

  Rotherham MBC

  3

  219,407

  St. Helens MBC

  1

  165,000

  Sandwell MBC

  17

  73,660

  Sheffield City

  1

  150,000

  Shropshire CC

  1

  378,814

  Solihull MBC

  1

  179,247

  South Holland DC

  1

  2,500

  Surrey CC

  2

  11,100

  Tameside MBC

  2

  42,160

  Teignbridge DC

  2

  70,000

  Trafford MBC

  3

  150,000

  Warrington BC

  1

  242,806

  Wokingham DC

  1

  208,096

  Worcestershire CC

  2

  58,831

  Environment Agency

  9

  1,362,000

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Transport Funding
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes have been made by the Department of the Environment (N.I.) to the funding made available to(a) the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and its subsidiaries and (b) the NI Roads Programme in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999. [85958]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]The information for the financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000 requested is as follows:

  Business Development Service
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what key performance targets have been set for the Business Development Service to be achieved by April 2000. [86488]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Business Development Service is an Executive Agency of the Department of Finance and Personnel. I have set a number of key performance targets for the Agency to achieve by April 2000, as follows:

  to maintain a level of at least 90 per cent. of customers to be satisfied with the services that they have received;

  to maintain a level of at least 90 per cent. of customers to be satisfied with the way in which services were provided to them;

  to achieve levels of efficiency savings in total running costs of 3 per cent. over the allocation for 1998–99;

  to demonstrate, on a notional basis and within the context of service level agreements (where these apply), that the Agency would recover the full cost of its operations from its customers; and

  to maintain systems of people development consistent with good human resource practice.

  Copies of the Agency's Strategic and Business Plans for 1999 to 2002 have been placed in the Library.

  Contract Compliance
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 26 January 1999,Official Report,column 191, what advice was received by Ministers on the legal permissibility of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights' recommendations on contract compliance under European law; if she subsequently sought legal opinion on contract compliance; and if she will make a statement. [86137]

  Mr. Ingram
  My reply of 26 January indicated the input of legal advisers to consideration of the recommendations in the Standing Advisory Commission for Human Rights' report on employment equality of June 1997. Subsequent to publication of the Government's response to those recommendations in the White Paper, "Partnership for Equality" (CM 3890) in March 1998, the Secretary of State has not sought further legal opinion on contract compliance.

  West Midlands Police
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the West Midlands police force have spent time on secondment with the RUC in the past 10 years; what was the average length of time spent on secondment; and what was the purpose of these placements. [86143]

  Mr. Ingram
  In the last 10 years, two members of the West Midlands police force have been seconded to the Royal Ulster Constabulary for a period of six months each. These placements were part of a Management Exchange with RUC officers for the career development of the individuals concerned.

  RUC Officers (Paramilitary Connections)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what powers are available to the Chief Constable of the RUC to take disciplinary action against officers joining or associating with paramilitary organisations; who is responsible for discipline among police officers from England and Wales serving in the RUC on secondment; and who has responsibility for informing her if a police officer on secondment to the RUC has paramilitary associations[86144]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Chief Constable's powers to take disciplinary action against a member of the RUC below the rank of Assistant Chief Constable are provided for in the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Discipline and Disciplinary Appeals) Regulations 1988.

  The Chief Constable, or Police Authority for senior officers, is responsible for the discipline of police officers from England and Wales on secondment with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The Chief Constable is also responsible for the investigation of criminal matters and, except for senior officers, for police discipline.

  Barry Mason
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she has received a report of the evidence given in the course of the legal action against former chief superintendent Barry Mason of the West Midlands police that concluded on 22 April. [86145]

  Mr. Ingram
  Yes.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Claims Assessors
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he intends to take to investigate the activities of non-legally qualified claims assessors.[86390]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Lord Chancellor intends to establish a small committee to investigate the provision of legal advice by non-legally qualified persons who act as claims assessors, whose business is to process claims, on behalf of clients, arising as a result of death or personal injury. In particular, the committee will examine the sector's cost, standard, appropriateness and customer satisfaction. The committee will report its findings and make recommendations on whether any further control of this sector is needed in the public interest.

  Advisory Board on Family Law
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Advisory Board on Family Law intends to publish its second annual report. [86389]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Advisory Board on Family Law published its second annual report on 27 May and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

TREASURY

  European Employment Pact
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the European Presidency's draft for a European Employment Pact, as discussed at ECOFIN on 10 May. [85524]

  Ms Hewitt
  The European Presidency text on a European Employment Pact as agreed at the Cologne Council has been placed in the Library this afternoon.

  HIPC Trust Fund
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with his counterparts in other G7 countries regarding their Governments' contributions to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Trust Fund; and if he will make a statement. [85719]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor has discussed the HIPC trust fund with all his G7 colleagues and will be discussing these issues further at the G7 in Frankfurt this weekend.

  Debt Burden
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what agreement was reached at the last G7 Finance Ministers' Meeting on reducing the debt burden of the poorest countries; and if he will make a statement. [85718]

  Ms Hewitt
  G7 Finance Ministers last met on 26 April. Paragraph 11 of their statement, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House, set out the conclusions of the meeting.

  The UK is continuing to argue for faster, deeper and wider debt relief.

  Recognised Overseas Investment Exchange
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase the fees Her Majesty's Treasury currently charges to applicants for Recognised Overseas Investment Exchange status or Recognised Overseas Clearing House status under sections 112 and 113 of the Financial Services Act 1986. [86617]

  Ms Hewitt
  The application fee will be increased to £33,000 and the periodical fee will be increased to £9,000 with effect from 1 July 1999.

  Diesel Fuel Prices
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how many pence per litre the price of a litre of diesel has risen since May 1997. [84914]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 21 May 1999]: The price of diesel in May 1997 was published in the DTI's 1998 Digest of Energy Statistics, table 8.12. The latest price, for April 1999, was published in a DTI press notice, "Statistical Press Release, Advance Energy Statistics", on 5 May 1999.

DEFENCE

  Kosovo
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the pay received by British soldiers who are on duty in and around Kosovo. [85650]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]: UK Service personnel deployed to the Balkans are paid in accordance with their rank, length of service and, in the case of other ranks, their trade, at rates recommended by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB). Where appropriate, personnel also receive additional pay in recognition of their specialist skills or service, ie flying pay or parachute pay, at rates also recommended by the AFPRB.

  The AFPRB make their recommendations on the basic pay of all members of the Armed Forces on the basis of broad comparability with the pay of civilian occupations of similar job weight and responsibility within the UK. To this basic pay is then added an additional element called the A-Factor' (currently 12 per cent. of basic pay) to reflect the differences between conditions of service experienced by members of the Armed Forces over a full career and conditions in civilian life, which cannot be taken directly into account in assessing pay comparability. Part of the AFPRB's considerations in determining the X-Factor includes the liability to serve from time to time in difficult and dangerous circumstances. The 'X-Factor' is paid continuously to all Service personnel, apart from the most senior officers, throughout their careers regardless of where they are serving, and it is pensionable. This mechanism is so constructed to ensure our continuing ability to recruit and retain personnel of the right calibre and reflects the fact that the UK's Armed Forces have an expectation of world wide deployment.

  RAF Quedgeley
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what planning permissions have been sought for RAF Quedgeley; and what is their current status. [85885]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]: The areas formerly known as Sites 2 and 4, which are located to the south of the Main Site, and Site 6, located close to the A38, have now been sold as land for storage purposes.

  No planning permission has yet been sought for Main Site, Quedgeley as this will be a matter for the Purchaser. However, my Department has made representation at the recent Gloucestershire County Structure Plan Examination in Public and has consulted on a regular basis with Gloucester City Council about proposed uses for the site.

  Equipment Budgets
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the overspend for the (i) land equipment budget, (ii) sea equipment budget and (iii) air equipment budget in the present financial year. [85916]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]: The Defence budget for the present financial year, 1999–2000, is not currently overspent in any main budget area.

  Royal Hospital, Haslar
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many letters he has received concerning the future of Defence Medical Services; and of these, how many opposed the closure of the Royal Hospital, Haslar. [85553]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]: My Department, including the Defence Secondary Care Agency, has received over 500 letters concerning the Defence Medical Services and the future of the Royal Hospital, Haslar. This figure includes letters to the Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State for Health and Transport which were passed to my Department for reply. The majority of these letters referred to the Royal Hospital, Haslar and all were opposed to its closure.

  Service Children's Education
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of Service Children's Education for the financial year 1999–2000.[86700]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive has been set the following Key Targets for 1999–2000:

  1. To meet the following percentage of pupils achieving Level 2 at the end of Key Stage 1 in:

  Reading: 87 per cent.

  Writing: 90 per cent.

  Spelling: 73 per cent.

  Mathematics: 91 per cent.

  2. To meet the following percentage of pupils achieving Level 4 at the end of Key Stage 2 in:

  English: 75 per cent.

  Mathematics: 75 per cent.

  Science: 80 per cent.

  3. To meet the following percentage of pupils achieving Level 5 at the end of Key Stage 3 in:

  English: 81 per cent.

  Mathematics: 70 per cent.

  Science: 70 per cent.

  4. To meet a three year rolling average percentage of Year 11 pupils in SCE achieving five or more higher (A*–C*) grades in GCSE of 46 per cent.

  5. To meet a three year rolling average of subject entries achieving passes at grades A-C at A level of 57 per cent.

  6. To achieve as a minimum a "satisfactory" standard in each OFSTED school inspection.

  7. To respond in full to customers seeking educational advice from SCE(UK) within the following timescales:

  91 per cent. within 10 working days of receipt remainder within 20 working days of receipt

  8. To develop an Agency Efficiency Index by 2000–01.

  9. To achieve index of satisfaction with SCE within the Army Spouses Continuous Attitude Survey above 360 overall.

  Nuclear Weapons
  MS Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to ensure the future integrity of the UK's nuclear weapon stockpile in the absence of underground weapon stockpile in the absence of underground weapon testing. [86701]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I announced in the Strategic Defence Review that for as long as the United Kingdom has nuclear forces we will ensure that we have a robust capability to underwrite the integrity of our nuclear wareheads without recourse to nuclear testing.As part of 330
  that I have approved investment in the US National Ignition Facility (NIF). This will guarantee the United Kingdom access to a high-powered laser, which is a key element of our stewardship programme. Participation in the NIF will be a joint venture under the auspices of the 1958 UK/US Mutual Defence Agreement.

  Defence Analytical Services Agency
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency for financial year 1999–2000. [86702]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency for Financial Year 1999–2000. The targets build on the progress already made by the Agency since it formed in 1992 and are as follows:

  Delivery of customer service and quality

  The majority of the Agency's business is covered by Service Level Agreements with customers, which set out the targets for timeliness and quality of work. For the parts of the business where Service Level Agreements are inappropriate, project agreements are in place. The Agency is committed to a continual improvement in the range and quality of the services it provides to customers. Key Targets are:

  (a) To meet at least 95 per cent. of the timeliness and quality targets set in Service Level Agreement and project agreements.

  (b) To have at least 90 per cent. of customers saying they are at least satisfied with the timeliness, quality of work and helpfulness of staff in the Annual Customer Satisfaction Survey covering all aspects of business.

  (c) To have at least 25 per cent. of customers who received DASA services in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 report an improvement in those services in the Annual Customer Satisfaction Survey.

  (d) To develop corporate information on civilian personnel and make it available to civilian personnel managers by March 2000.

  Efficiency and business excellence

  The Agency plans to make efficiency savings in 1999–2000 as well as meeting the additional demands placed on it by new Departmental studies and initiatives. The Agency is committed to continual improvement and is using the Business Excellence Model as a means of driving this forward. Key Targets are:

  (a) To achieve a British Quality Foundation validated score of 500 points or more against the Business Excellence Model.

  (b) To achieve Investors in People re-accreditation by the end of March 2000.

  (c) To deliver efficiency savings with a value of 1 per cent. of the initial running cost allocation, as the first instalment of a programme to achieve 10 per cent. efficiency savings over 3 years.

  AS90 Howitzer
  Dr.Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with regard to placing a contract for the Extended Range Ordnance and Modular Charge System for the AS90 howitzer. [86703]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I am pleased to announce that a contract for the final development and production of extended range barrels and a new Modular Charge System for the AS90 self-propelled gun has been placed with Marconi Electronic Systems. This programme will extend the range and increase the effectiveness of AS90, and will
  331
  provide a significantly enhanced artillery capability for the British Army. The contract will sustain about 50 jobs with Marconi at Barrow-in-Furness and at the Royal Ordnance factory in Nottingham, which will manufacture the extended range barrels. The Modular Charge System will be supplied by Somchem of South Africa. The total value of the contract with Marconi is around £75 million.

  Learning Forces Initiative
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards establishing the Learning Forces Initiative announced in the Strategic Defence Review. [86704]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In April Standard Learning Credits were introduced which increased by 25 per cent. the financial assistance available annually for Service personnel to undertake education for personal development. Enhanced Learning Credits will be introduced next year. This major new scheme will provide a substantial source of funding for personal development both during service in the Armed Forces and for up to 10 years thereafter.

  Training Group Defence Agency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Training Group Defence Agency for financial year 1999–2000. [86705]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Training Group Defence Agency for the Financial Year 1999–2000 as follows:

  Key Target 1—Quantity of Output (ab initio Flying Training) The number of RAF aircrew trainees graduated as follows:

  KT1a—Number of trainees graduating from ab initio flying training

  Performance level

  Fast-Jet Pilots

  59

  Multi-Engine Pilots

  46

  Rotary Wing Pilots

  33

  Fast-Jet Navigators

  24

  Multi-Engine Navigators

  11

  Rotary Wing Navigators

  14

  Airman Aircrew

  78

  The number of RAF trainees who graduate from the following courses:

  KT1b—Quantity of output(ab initio ground training)

  Performance level

  Officer Training

  282

  RAF Tradesman Training

  1,827

  RAF Regiment Gunner Training

  395

  The number of training places provided on the following RN, Army, RAF refresher, CFS and Foreign and Commonwealth flying courses:

  KT1c—Quantity of output flying(other customers and refresher training)

  Performance level

  Flying Training—RN, Army, RAF Refresher and CFS

  819

  Flying Training Courses—F&C

  83

  332
  Number of training places provided on Ground courses:

  KT1d—Quantity of output ground(pre-employment and career development training)

  Performance level

  RAF Pre-employment and Career

  Development Training

  25,417

  Key Target 2—Quality of Output

  To achieve a rating of satisfactory in the Agency's customer satisfaction matrix for the quality of 100 per cent. of graduate trainees.

  Key Target 3—Efficiency

  To deliver 2.36 per cent. efficiency savings from allocated budget.

  Key Target 4—Development of Output Costings and Unit cost measurement

  To provide full output costings and associated unit cost and efficiency measures by April 2000.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drug Orders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug treatment and testing orders he has forecast to be made in his financial plans for the first full year of their operation. [85766]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Our current best estimate of the unit cost of a Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) is £6,400. On that basis, the funds allocated should allow probation services to fund treatment and testing of approximately 6,000 offenders sentenced to DTTOs in 2001–02. The pilot evaluation report will provide accurate information on the unit cost and, therefore, the number of DTTOs that can be made each year.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of a drug treatment and testing order imposed in the three pilot areas. [85769]

  Mr. George Howarth
  As at June 1999, the average length of a Drug Treatment and Testing Order in

  (a) Croydon is 16.8 months;

  (b) Gloucestershire is 12.9 months; and

  (c) Liverpool is 12.9 months.

  London River Police
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be(a) the establishment and (b) actual numbers of officers in post of the London River Police on 1 January 2000; and if he will make a statement.[86036]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the target strength for the Thames Division on 1 January 2000 will be 89 officers and that he expects that number to be in post then. At the moment the strength is 101.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the staffing requirement of the London River Police over the Millennium public holiday; and if he will make a statement. [86037]
  333
  Kate Hoey
  The deployment of officers in the Thames Division of the Metropolitan Police is an operational matter for the Commissioner. He tells me that during the Millennium public holiday he expects that the full strength of the Division, 89 officers, will be deployed on a 24-hour shift pattern. The deployment of resources will be kept under review, and altered as necessary if new events related to the Millennium are planned.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend Part V of the Police Act 1997 regarding the Criminal Records Bureau; what time scale he envisages for reform; and if he will make a statement. [85904]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Protection of Children Bill, currently before Parliament, aims to amend Part V of the Police Act 1997 so as to permit the Criminal Records Bureau to act as a "one stop shop" for criminal record information and information contained in the Department for Education and Employment's List 99 and the Department of Health's Consultancy Index.

  I have no plans for other amendments to Part V.

  CRE Annual Report
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to make available the Commission for Racial Equality's 1998 annual report; and if he will make a statement. [86621]

  Mr. Straw
  I have arranged for copies of the Commission for Racial Equality's 1998 report which is being published today to be placed in the Library.

  The report demonstrates the Commission's commitment to making racial equality a reality in Britain and shows how it is playing a positive role to promote the importance of equal opportunities.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the support arrangements for the families of asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [86622]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government are determined to deliver an immigration and asylum system which is fairer, faster and firmer. The Immigration and Asylum Bill is key to achieving this goal. The new arrangements contained in the Bill will provide a coherent national support system for asylum seekers, including families with children.

  The Bill has been carefully scrutinised by a Special Standing Committee which took evidence as well as considering it clause by clause. I am very grateful to all the hon. Members who took part in this Committee. In the light of issues raised, I am making the following changes:

  I have today tabled amendments to the Immigration and Asylum Bill to make clear that the Home Secretary will be under a new duty to meet the accommodation and essential living needs of destitute asylum seeker families. The assistance they receive in this way will be comparable to what would otherwise be available under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. All other safeguards for children contained in that Act will continue to apply. Linked with
  334
  the commitment we have already made to provide 24 hour emergency cover for such families, these measures will ensure that the children of asylum seekers receive the same kind of protection as other children enjoy.

  I have also reviewed the balance between cash and vouchers in the resources to be made available to asylum seekers for living expenses, and have concluded that a cash allowance of £10 per person per week is justifiable for both adults and children. This would mean that, at the present illustrative support rates, a family of four would receive £40 per week in cash, and a further £50 of spending power by way of vouchers.

  In the White Paper, "Fairer, Faster and Firmer" the Government set a target of delivering, by April 2001, most initial asylum decisions within two months and most appeals in a further four months. In respect of families with children, I have decided to bring forward this target to April 2000. From that date, our aim will be to deliver initial decisions on new asylum applications in such cases in an average of two months. Average waiting times for appeals are already below four months. Our intention is to maintain this for the future for all categories of cases. If we cannot achieve these targets for families with children, we will not bring these applications into the new support arrangements in April 2000. We will only do so when we are satisfied that the targets for these cases can be met. For those people who remain on the support arrangements for more than six months through no fault of their own, we shall be introducing an additional discretionary payment to assist with the cost of any replacement items they may need.

  These changes, together with the other amendments that I am tabling today, will strengthen the Bill and ensure that the Government's objectives are achieved.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the annual report for 1998 of the Complaints Audit Committee of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and if he will make a statement. [86623]

  Mr. Straw
  A copy of the report has been placed in the Library. It is a useful and informative document and I am grateful to the Committee for its comments and its recommendations which will all be followed up. The report also includes details of the broadening of the Committee's terms of reference to encompass quality of service issues.

  Pelargonic Acid Vanillyamide
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the scientific references used to ascertain the safety of pelargonic acid vanillyamide, as a replacement for CS spray. [85856]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am aware of no published reports relating to the safety of pelargonic acid vanillyamide (PAVA), although some private research on the subject has been commissioned by Hertfordshire Constabulary. The Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch considers that the information currently available is not sufficient to allow the use of PAVA as an incapacitant in the United Kingdom at present.

  Pre-inquest Disclosure
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 May 1999,Official Report, column 434, what guidance has been issued to the police on pre-inquest disclosure to relatives of the deceased. [86139]

  Mr. Straw
  On 28 April 1999, a Home Office circular was issued to Chief Officers of Police advising them, where there has been a death in police custody, to make arrangements for the pre-inquest disclosure of documentary evidence to interested persons.

  The guidance advises Chief Officers that there should be as great a degree of openness as possible, and that disclosure of documentary material to interested persons before the inquest hearing should be normal practice in cases of death in police custody and death arising from fatal road crashes involving the police. The guidance also states that in all cases, Chief Officers will want to consider whether there are compelling reasons why certain documents, or parts of documents, may not be disclosed. But there should always be a presumption in favour of openness. A copy of the circular has been placed in the Library.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) killed and (b) injured by (i) hand guns, (ii) air guns, (iii) shot guns, (iv) rifles over .22 calibre, (v) rifles of .22 calibre, (vi) submachine guns and (vii) other firearms in each of the last five years indicating how many of the deaths and injuries were (a) accidental, (b) non-accidental and (c) self-inflicted by legally held firearms. [85866]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information obtained from the Office for National Statistics shows the following number of accidental deaths by shooting, broken down by the available type of gun for the years 1994 to 1998:

  Accidental deaths by shooting, England and Wales, 1994–98

  Hand gun

  Shot gun

  Military firearm

  Other firearm

  Total

  1994

  2

  4

  1

  3

  10

  1995

  1

  6

  —

  5

  12

  1996

  —

  3

  —

  4

  7

  1997

  1

  4

  —

  1

  6

  1998

  1

  5

  1

  1

  8

  Information is not available on the number of accidental injuries caused by firearms.

  Deaths and injuries caused by the use of firearms crime are as follows:

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms caused injury, England and Wales, 1993–97

  Hand gun

  Shot gun

  Air/weapon

  Other firearm

  Total

  Fatal injury

  1993

  35

  39

  —

  —

  74

  1994

  25

  36

  —

  5

  66

  1995

  39

  28

  1

  2

  70

  1996

  30

  17

  —

  4

  49

  1997

  39

  16

  —

  59

  336

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms caused injury, England and Wales, 1993–97

  Hand gun

  Shot gun

  Air/ weapon

  Other firearm

  Total

  Other injury

  1993

  358

  180

  1,578

  158

  2,274

  1994

  292

  143

  1,591

  149

  2,175

  1995

  260

  118

  1,409

  199

  1,986

  1996

  249

  87

  1,212

  384

  1,932

  1997

  275

  55

  1,194

  389

  1,913

  Source:

  Home Office

  Figures for 1998 are not yet available.

  Information obtained from the Office for National Statistics shows the following number of suicides by shooting, broken down by the available type of gun for the years 1994 to 1998:

  Suicides1 by shooting, England and Wales, 1994–98

  Hand gun

  Shot gun

  Military firearm

  Other firearm

  Total

  1994

  4

  80

  —

  80

  164

  1995

  3

  68

  1

  88

  160

  1996

  1

  72

  2

  70

  145

  1997

  —

  59

  —

  57

  116

  1998

  3

  65

  —

  61

  129

  1Includes also cases where an open verdict was recorded where the harm was likely to have been self-inflicted but where there was insufficient evidence to prove that the deceased deliberately intended to kill themselves

  Information is not available on the number of self-inflicted injuries caused by firearms.

  Only in the case of the fatal injuries caused by the use of firearms in crime is any information held as to whether the firearm was legally held or not. The results of a special survey covering the years 1992 to 1994 showed that in cases where it was known whether the firearm was legally held or not, (151 cases out of 196) in 23 cases (15 per cent.) the firearm was legally held.

SCOTLAND

  Forestry Commission Research Agency
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what targets have been set for the Forestry Commission Research Agency for the current financial year. [86712]

  Dr. Reid
  The Forestry Commission Research Agency in has been set the following targets:To achieve a customer satisfaction rating of at least 95 per cent.
  To increase the output of peer-reviewed scientific papers submitted and subsequently accepted for publication by 8 per cent. on the 1998–99 target.
  To achieve a 2 per cent. real reduction in the weighted average unit cost of support services and to hold weighted average charge for a researcher day at 1998–99 levels.
  To achieve an operating surplus of at least £450,000.

  Copies of the agency's Business Plan, which contains more detail about these targets, have been placed in the Library.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Remploy
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what targets he has set Remploy in its 1999–2000 Annual Performance Agreement. [86330]

  Ms Hodge
  I have, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, written to the Chairman of Remploy approving the 1999–2000 Annual Performance Agreement between the Department and the Company. This agreement covers the year from 1 April 1999. It has been negotiated by the Chief Executive of the Employment Service on behalf of my right hon. Friend. The targets are:the average number of disabled people employed by Remploy Ltd. will be 10,150
  the average number of disabled people employed under the Interwork scheme will be 3,800
  the average number of progressions will increase to 400
  Remploy Ltd. will keep within a total unit cost target (operating deficit per disabled worker) of £9,700
  Remploy Ltd. will reduce its factory operating deficit to a maximum £81.0 million.

  I have today arranged for the text of the Annual Performance Agreement to be placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  Government-funded Research Programme
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the Government-funded research programme, showing(a) the research organisation, (b) the funding and (c) the research details; and if he will make a statement. [85697]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government fund health and medical research in a number of ways.

  Number of examining medical practitioner's (EMP) examinations and complaints in Manchester—September 1998–April 1999

  Month

  Number of EMP exams

  Number of complaints

  Doctor's manner

  Content and length of examination, clinical findings

  September 1998

  1,391

  0

  0

  0

  October 1998

  1,129

  1

  0

  1

  November 1998

  2,172

  7

  2

  7

  December 1998

  1,994

  7

  4

  7

  January 1999

  1,993

  11

  7

  11

  February 1999

  1,962

  11

  1

  9

  March 1999

  2,191

  25

  11

  53

  April 1999

  1,813

  18

  11

  15

  Total

  14,645

  80

  36

  103

  Notes:

  1. Figures are provisional and subject to change

  2. Some complaints will have been made on more than one issue

  Source:

  Medical Services

  338
  The Department funds research and development to support its work on policy development and evaluation in health and social care. The Department also manages the National Health Service research and development levy which is used to support research and development of relevance to the National Health Service in hospitals, general practice and other health care settings, and to fund the NHS research and development programme. In addition, the Medical Research Council (MRC)—which receives most of its income via grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—funds medical research as part of the Government's funding of the science and engineering base.

  The research commissioned involves many different research organisations. The precise list would change as research is commissioned and ceases but most medical schools and many universities, NHS providers and other research organisations are likely to be involved.

  Details of projects directly funded by the Department or supported through the NHS R&D levy can be found on the National Research Register (NRR). This is available in the Library on CD Rom, and on the Internet: http://www.doh.gov.uk/nrr.htm. The NRR also contains many details of projects/trials funded by the MRC and other funders. The Department spent approximately £489 million on health and social care research in 1998–99. Details about the MRC can be found in their Annual Report, copies of which are available in the Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Examining Medical Practitioners
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many examinations have been carried out by examining medical practitioners in the Greater Manchester area since January 1998; how many complaints have been made about(a) the examinations and (b) the examining medical practitioners; and what were the nature of the complaints. [85488]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. The information that is available is included in the following table.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children living in Shrewsbury and Atcham fall into the eldest child category for purposes of calculating the number who qualify for child benefit. [85655]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of Child Benefit is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 8 June 1999:
  Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many children living in Shrewsbury and Atcham fall into the eldest child category for purposes of calculating the number who qualify for child benefit.The information requested is not readily available, by region, to identify the number of children who qualify for the higher rate of Child Benefit payable for the eldest child. These figures could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, data will soon become available which it is hoped will enable the production of such figures, by Parliamentary constituency.I am sorry I am not able to help at the moment.

  Housing Benefit (Tower Hamlets)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to receive the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's report on housing benefit administration in Tower Hamlets. [86187]

  Mr. Timms
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) report on Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit administration in Tower Hamlets will be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before Parliament rises for the summer recess.

  Social Security Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to evaluate the impact on claimants' decisions of the change in the composition of social security appeal tribunals; [86154]

  (2) what representations he has received about the change in the composition of social security appeal tribunals; and if he will make a statement. [86155]

  Angela Eagle
  Schedule 6 of the Social Security Act 1998 provides powers for the President of the Independent Tribunal Service to vary the composition of certain Social Security Appeal Tribunals. These changes are in advance of the implementation of the main provisions of the Act which remove the rigid requirement for all benefit and child support appeals to be heard by a three person tribunal.

  Consultation and representations on the changes under Schedule 6 to the composition of Social Security Appeal Tribunals are matters which fall to His Honour, the President of the Independent Tribunal Service. The President also gave commitments to monitor these
  340
  changes. The President's early monitoring of the changes provides no evidence to suggest that the percentage of appeals upheld has been affected by the introduction of flexible composition.

  Benefit Assessment Appeals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals were made during the last 12 months against benefit assessments. [86192]

  Angela Eagle
  334,988 of the appeals lodged with the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) during the 12 months ending on 28 February 1999 were about benefit assessments.

  Source:

  100 per cent. download of the ITS computer system. The figure reflects the total number of new appeals to Social Security Appeal Tribunals, Disability Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals.

  Bereavement Benefits Scheme
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the amount of national insurance contributions paid by the late spouse will affect the level of the allowance that widows and widowers can receive under the proposed Bereavement Benefits Scheme. [86619]

  Mr. Timms
  As with the current Widow's Benefit, entitlement to the proposed Bereavement benefits will depend on satisfaction of the contribution conditions by the late spouse. Reduced amounts can be paid if the conditions are not fully met and failure to meet the conditions can mean no benefits are paid. The contributions of married women who die before reaching pension age will count for the first time under our proposals and in the first year some 30,000 widowers will be able to claim benefit of £45 to £50 a week.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the next stage of formal consultation on the detail of stakeholder pensions policy will commence. [86620]

  Mr. Timms
  The consultation paper "Stakeholder Pensions: Minimum Standards—the Government Proposals" was published on 2 June 1999. Copies have been placed in the Library and in the Vote Office. Further consultation papers will be issued in the coming weeks.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide the latest available figures on the total cost to the Social Security budget of claims by asylum seekers in the years 1993–94 to 1998–99. [86618]

  Angela Eagle
  The available estimated costs for Income Support (and Jobseeker's Allowance (income based) from 1997), Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit are in the table. Information on the other non-contributory benefits is not available.
  341

  Asylum seekers—estimated annual expenditure

  £ million

  Year

  Total estimated annual expenditure

  Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance(IB)

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  1993–94

  340

  160

  175

  5

  1994–95

  360

  180

  175

  5

  1995–96

  420

  205

  205

  10

  1996–97

  400

  195

  195

  10

  1997–98

  305

  150

  145

  10

  1998–991

  280

  150

  120

  10

  1Forecast expenditure figures

  Notes:

  1. Estimated annual expenditure figures are rounded to the nearest £5 million. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  2. Income Support/Jobseeker's Allowance estimates will include a number of non-asylum seekers that receive Urgent Case Payments for other reasons.

  3. Annual expenditure figures for Income Support/Jobseeker's Allowance have been based on an average of four quarters for the relevant financial year, using number of cases and average weekly amounts.

  4. Income Support for the unemployed was replaced by Jobseeker's Allowance in October 1996. Unemployed recipients of Income Support are therefore included in the Income Support estimates for 1995–96 and 1996–97. The 1997–98 figures include Jobseeker's Allowance (income based) recipients (only available for 1997–98).

  5. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit estimates have been calculated using the Housing Benefit Management 1 per cent. sample and Departmental Reports, and exclude asylum seekers receiving Housing Benefit who are not receiving Income Support. Numbers of recipients with Housing Benefit but no Income Support are thought to be negligible.

  Source:

  1. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Inquiries, May 1993 to February 1998.

  2. Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, May 1997 to February 1998.

  3. Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample of claimants in receipt of Income Support, at the end of May in each year given.

  4. Departmental Report.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  RADA
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to ensure the financial stability of RADA; and if he will make a statement. [86080]

  Mr. Mudie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Royal Academy of Dramatic Art is a private institution not funded directly by Government.

  The Arts Council of England has awarded £23.75 million of Lottery funds towards RADA's centenary project, which is intended to enable the Academy to achieve financial independence to continue as a key provider of drama training.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the steps which he has taken to give more detailed consideration to the areas of concern highlighted in the study of the Ilisu Dam project commissioned by the Swiss Government. [84893]

  Mr. Wilson
  ECGD is consulting other Government Departments and independent environmental advisers. They are also discussing the case with the other Export Credit agencies that are involved. No decision has yet been taken as to whether ECGD should support the project.

  Research Council (Brussels)
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the Research Council held in Brussels on 20 May; and if he will make a statement. [85358]

  Mr. Battle
  The Research Council of 20 May:

  1. Agreed decisions on the association of applicant countries (CCEE and Cyprus) with the Fifth Framework programme for European Research and Technological Development.

  2. Adopted a resolution on "Women and Science: Mobilising women to enrich European research".

  3. Received information from the Commission on the competitiveness of European enterprises in the face of globalisation and on its views on the decommissioning of the Joint Research Centre's obsolete nuclear facilities, and from the Presidency on scientific and technical co-operation with the Mediterranean partner countries.

  After the formal council meeting, the Presidency held informal discussions, in which Ministers were joined by invited experts, on issues concerning future European research policy.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evaluation he has carried out on the impacts of a climate change levy, rebated by a general reduction in national insurance contributions, on the(a) steel, (b) chemical, (c) aluminium, (d) cement and (e) other major energy-using industries. [86043]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department is having extensive discussions with business on the impact of the climate change levy, and the accompanying reduction in employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs), which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his 9 March Budget.

  The Government have said that they wish to implement the climate change levy in a way which minimises any adverse impact on the competitiveness of UK business. I welcome the recognition of the special circumstances of intensive energy sectors and the planned negotiated agreements with them, which will enable them to get significantly lower rates of the levy in return for commitments to improve their energy efficiency or reduce emissions.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will decide the final rates of the levy, including the discounts for intensive energy users which enter

  343
  negotiated agreements. The overall impact of the levy, coupled with the reduction in employer NICs, on these sectors will depend on these decisions. The Government will continue to listen to the views of business and as raised in response to the Customs and Excise consultation, which ended on 28 May and final decisions will be taken in the light of these.

  Charities (Telephone Charges)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to discourage charities from using premium telephone line charges. [86217]

  Mr. Wills
  The Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS) has responsibility for regulating premium rate services. ICSTIS enforces an effective Code of Practice which has provisions to ensure that consumers are given adequate information to enable them to take informed decisions about the use of premium rate services. The Code ensures that the costs of calls to premium rate charitable promotions must be given in advertisements and ensures the caller is aware of the name of the beneficiary. I am confident in the effectiveness of ICSTIS to regulate the premium rate services market for charitable promotions.

  Biotechnology Applications
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are currently employed in the medical and pharmaceutical applications of biotechnology in the United Kingdom; and what has been the annual financial contribution of this area of biotechnology to the United Kingdom's GDP since and including 1992(a) in actual terms and (b) in terms of a percentage of the whole. [86069]

  Mr. Battle
  This information is not available from official statistics. To obtain it, would involve disproportionate cost.

  MOX Transport Plan
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of the United Kingdom maritime threat assessment prepared as part of the MOX transport plan. [85821]

  Mr. Battle
  No. For obvious security reasons, the details of assessments by the security authorities, including maritime threat assessments, are confidential.

  Plutonium Sea Shipments
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date the details of the United Kingdom safety and security plans covering the sea shipment to Japan from Sellafield of plutonium-based MOX fuel was communicated to the Japanese Government and Japanese nuclear authorities; and what response he received. [85826]

  Mr. Battle
  Under the terms of the 1988 US-Japan Nuclear Co-operation Agreement, it is the responsibility of the Government of Japan to prepare and to submit to the United States Administration a transport plan covering arrangements for the sea shipment of Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel from Europe to Japan. This transport plan 344
  was prepared in close consultation with the Governments of France and the United Kingdom and submitted to the United States Government in January 1999. In May 1999, the United States Government confirmed that the transport plan fully satisfied the provisions of Annex 5 of the US-Japan Agreement.

  Bilateral Development Aid
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the CBI and other trade associations regarding untying UK bilateral development aid. [85964]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had no discussions with the CBI or other Trade Associations regarding untying UK bilateral aid.

  Coal Authority (Records)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress on the identification, distribution and preservation of(a) coal and (b) non-coal records which have been the responsibility of the Coal Authority. [85901]

  Mr. Battle
  The Coal Authority owns a range of records related to coal-mining and the coal resource that are relevant to its activities; in particular, the records of the Coal Commission, which consist of the Coal Holdings Register compiled following the Coal Act 1937 and 26,500 associated claim files; and over one million geological records (principally borehole logs) and 20,000 magnetic tapes of seismic data. It also maintains, and provides public access to circa 100,000 coal-mine abandonment plans owned by the Health and Safety Executive, together with 2,500 boxes of ancillary records (notebooks and calculation ledgers used by surveyors to produce the original plans). The Authority does not hold, other than on an incidental basis, non-coal records.

  The Authority is currently considering in co-operation with other interested parties and those requiring access to the information where these records should be housed in the future. It is the Authority's intention to retain the records of the Coal Commission. The geological records and seismic data are in the process of being transferred to the British Geological Survey (BGS) centre at Keyworth, Nottinghamshire, to create a coherent collection of such records for all minerals. The Authority will shortly go to consultation on where the originals of the HSE's coal-mine abandonment plans, which are currently kept at the Bretby site, should be housed. It is the Authority's intention to retain micro-film copies of the plans if they are transferred to another record-holder.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the nuclear industry on its plans for new stations. [85710]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend and I have had a number of meetings with businesses in the nuclear industry, and many of these have included general discussion of the long-term prospects for new nuclear power stations, but we have received no applications for
  345
  consent to build a new nuclear power station, and to the best of my knowledge at present no company has plans to make such an application.

  Wave Power
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research into wave power is currently being funded by the Government. [85955]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]: The EPSRC announced its new £3.5 to £4 million per year Renewable and New Energy Technologies Programme in March 1999. The programme's remit covers renewable supply technologies, including marine (wave and tidal current) power and the first call for proposals closed on 14 May 1999. 131 outline proposals have been received, of which 15 are for wave energy projects. The outline proposals will be considered by an advisory panel later this month, following which full proposals for the most promising projects will be evaluated through EPSRC's peer review process.

  In addition, on 30 March this year I announced the launch of a new wave power research programme as part of my Department's New and Renewable Energy Programme. I expect that programme to monitor the development of projects contracted under the third Scottish Renewables Order and to support research, development and demonstration projects which can contribute to the development and assessment of wave power. Since my announcement officials at DTI have received several outline proposals from researchers and will consider these further in the light of decisions taken on outline proposals already submitted to the EPSRC programme.

  Animal-based Foodstuffs
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what elements of the World Trade Agreement prohibit(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the European Union from placing restrictions on the import of animal-based foodstuffs liable to contain high levels of antibiotic substances; which officials (i) negotiated, (ii) agreed to and (iii) endorsed on behalf of the negotiating parties those elements; and what ratification procedure was followed in (1) the European Union and (2) the member states. [86231]

  Mr. Wilson
  UK and EU regulation in this area is governed by the WTO Agreement on Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. This Agreement recognises the right of members to take measures necessary for the protection of human, animal or plant health. It requires, however, that any trade measures are based on scientific principles and are not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence. In a case where insufficient scientific evidence is currently available, WTO Members are allowed to impose a temporary ban while a thorough risk assessment is carried out. This agreement formed part of the WTO Agreement which concluded the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations on 15 December 1993. The WTO Agreement was negotiated by the European Commission in consultation with EC member states under the provisions of the EC Treaties. The Agreement was signed on behalf of the United Kingdom by the former right hon. Member for Hove, the then Minister for Industry, in Marrakesh on 346
  15 April 1994. Under the Ponsonby rule, the Agreement was laid before Parliament in May 1994 and debated on 14 June 1994.

  The United Kingdom's instrument of Ratification to the WTO Agreement was deposited with the GATT Legal Adviser on 30 December 1994. For the EC, the WTO Agreement was accepted by means of a Council decision and assent given by the European Parliament. The Agreement entered into force on 1 January 1995. The main WTO Agreement was published as Treaty Series No. 57 of 1996 (Cm 3277), and the Agreement on Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures as No. 54 of 1996 (Cm 3275). The UK's certified copy of the WTO Agreement resides in the Public Record Office.

  Trading (Human Rights)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice his Department gives to prospective exporters about the human rights record of the receiving country; and whether this advice is given only in response to a specific request. [85830]

  Mr. Wilson
  British Trade International, the joint DTI/FC0 operation for international trade promotion, provides advice in response to specific requests, except in the case of Burma where it is provided routinely.

  Funeral Industry
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment he has made of the results of the OFT inquiry into the funeral industry; [86280]

  (2) what plans he has to review the regulations governing the funeral industry; [86281]

  (3) what representations he has received from the OFT about competition in the funeral industry. [86282]

  Dr. Howells
  The Director-General for Fair Trading (DGFT) announced on 15 May 1998 an inquiry into the "at need" funerals industry. The inquiry is focusing on whether competition in the industry is effective.

  I understand that the OFT has yet to complete its inquiries. On doing so, it will then be a matter for the DGFT to consider if further action is appropriate, such as making representations to the DTI.

  There are no plans at present to regulate the funeral industry with the exception of the pre-paid funeral plans sector. It is proposed to bring this part of the industry within the scope of the Financial Services and Markets Bill.

  HM Treasury issued a consultation paper in January 1999 outlining their proposals. Closing date for responses was 30 April. These responses are currently being considered by officials from DTI and the Treasury.

  Corporate Neglect
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the Law Commission's report on Corporate Neglect; and if he will make a statement. [85481]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.
  347
  An inter-departmental working group of officials, which includes a member of the Law Commission, is currently considering the recommendations made in the Law Commission's report Number 237, "Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter", which includes the creation of a new offence of corporate killing.

  We will consider whether and how to implement the recommendations of the Law Commission in respect of corporate killing once we have received the recommendations of the inter-departmental working group later this year.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Defence Review
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the leaders of NATO member states to discuss matters relating to a European Defence Review. [85195]

  The Prime Minister
  The last collective meeting was the NATO Summit in April where the main focus was the conflict in Kosovo. However, the Summit unanimously welcomed and endorsed the European defence initiative we launched last year.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made to the House on 8 June 1999, Official Report, columns 463–65, where I set out details of agreement reached at the Cologne European Council on the further development of a common European security and defence policy.

  Official Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 June. [85905]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bat Meat
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the extent of the illegal trade in bat meat within the UK; and what steps he is taking to eradicate it. [85742]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]: I am aware of the recent press reports stating that illegally imported bat meat is being sold in this country. MAFF officials, Official Veterinary Surgeons at Border Inspection Posts and local authorities have been asked to increase their vigilance in order to prevent this trade.

  Horticulture Industry
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the applicability of the EU fruit and vegetable regime to the UK horticulture industry; and what proposals he has to improve the UK take-up of assistance under the regime. [86107]
  348
  Mr. Rooker
  The reformed EU fruit and vegetable regime offers enormous benefits for UK growers. The progressive reduction in aid for intervention, and diversion of funds to structured operational programmes, has already enabled those growers who trade through producer organisations (POs) to benefit. Payments to POs for constructive works over a period of years enables POs to improve production techniques, quality, preparation for market, marketing and promotional activity, in addition to encouraging the use of environmentally sound practices.

  Seventy six operational programmes are currently running in the UK. Funding for work on UK programmes in 1997 totalled £5.7 million. Payment for work in 1998 is expected to be about £7 million with a potential payment of £12 million for 1999. This represents new funding for the UK horticulture industry.

  There is no great tradition of grower co-operation in the UK and, although a total of 92 POs in the UK are recognised under the new regime, the percentage of the UK fruit and vegetable sector covered by recognised POs is only 35 per cent. My officials have contacted organisations which have not sought recognition and encouraged them to do so. Independent growers are also encouraged to join existing POs or to form new organisations and seek recognition, so that they can benefit from EU aid.

  International Whaling Commission
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the recent meeting of the International Whaling Commission. [86331]

  Mr. Morley
  The International Whaling Commission's 51st Annual Meeting was held in Grenada from 24 to 28 May. I attended the meeting, together with officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Virgin Islands, as well as representatives of environmental organisations.

  At the meeting I re-affirmed the United Kingdom's opposition to whaling. I am pleased to say that efforts by Japan to secure a quota of 50 minke whales, despite the moratorium on commercial whaling, and to weaken the Southern Ocean Sanctuary were defeated by substantial majorities. There was once again strong criticism of Norway's and Japan's continued whaling activities.

  The Chairman of the IWC, the Commissioner for Ireland, announced that discussions with IWC members on the ideas put forward by Ireland in 1997 were continuing, although he had no real progress to report. The Irish proposals would involve a ban on all whaling, including scientific whaling, outside coastal waters, with the possibility that countries might authorise whaling under IWC rules within their own coastal waters for domestic consumption. The proposals also envisage a ban on international trade in whale products.

  In the ensuing debate I made it clear that the UK's ultimate aim remained a permanent, worldwide moratorium on all whaling other than aboriginal subsistence whaling. However, we recognised that this was not something that was likely to be achieved overnight, or that could be imposed on members of the IWC against their will. We were, therefore, prepared to

  349
  consider ideas for reaching interim solutions on the way to our ultimate destination. But any arrangements of this kind would have to deliver very real benefits to whale conservation. In this context, we continued to have reservations about some aspects of the Irish proposals, in particular the possibility of renewed coastal whaling. I noted that it seemed, in any case, unlikely that the Irish proposals represented a realistic way forward, given the opposition by Japan to ending scientific whaling. In these circumstances it was important to consider other ways in which the IWC could move forward. In the UK's view these included:
  the creation of new regional sanctuaries;
  changing the emphasis of the IWC's scientific committee away from the management of whale stocks in the context of whaling towards a much broader exploration of whale conservation issues;
  continuing the IWC's efforts to assess fully the impact of environment change for cetaceans;
  greater involvement of the IWC in issues relating to small cetaceans;
  encouraging whalewatching as a benign, potentially very profitable and sustainable way of exploiting a natural resource;
  continued involvement of the IWC in welfare issues, including the encouragement of more efficient and humane killing methods, particularly in aboriginal subsistence whaling.

  I also reaffirmed that in the UK's view the IWC has an essential role to play as the only international body with worldwide responsibility for the conservation of whales and that we would continue to participate actively, and constructively, in its deliberations.

  Australia and New Zealand reported that consultations were continuing on the idea of a South Pacific Sanctuary, but that they were not yet in a position to put forward a formal proposal; the IWC is likely to revert to this topic next year.

  The meeting confirmed the central role that environmental concerns now play in the IWC's work. An impressive presentation by the US Commissioner demonstrated the scale of the potential threat posed to cetaceans by climate change and pollution. I emphasised that, in the light of our increasing understanding of these threats there was greater concern than in the past about the ability of whale populations to withstand direct exploitation; in our view this was a cogent reason to adopt a precautionary approach to cetacean conservation and management. The IWC agreed to provide core funding, including £100,000 drawn from its reserves, for two substantial programmes of research on the effects of climate change and pollution on cetaceans; it also urged other interested parties to contribute to these programmes.

  The IWC agreed a further 3-year aboriginal subsistence quota permitting inhabitants of St. Vincent and the Grenadines to take two hump back whales a year. During the meeting the IWC considered whether recent takes under this quota contravened IWC rules, which prohibit the killing of whale calves: it was not possible to reach a firm conclusion on this matter, as the rules in question are not entirely clear. However, the agreement to extend the quota amended the rules to remove any uncertainty, and the IWC also agreed a definition of the term calf for the purposes of this quota. In agreeing the quota the IWC also noted commitments by the Government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines to ensure that this hunt is properly regulated, to review and improve hunting and killing
  350
  methods and to provide a more detailed statement of its aboriginal subsistence needs when seeking any further quota. As amended it is now absolutely clear that the taking of a cow and calf is forbidden.

  The IWC meeting was preceded by a workshop of scientific and veterinary experts which examined methods used to kill whales with a view to improving their humaneness. The UK delegation to the workshop was led by Professor Sir Colin Spedding, a previous chairman of the Farm Animal Welfare Council and an internationally recognised authority on welfare issues. The workshop produced an 11 point action plan to improve the effectiveness and humaneness of whale killing methods, including those used in aboriginal subsistence hunts. This was endorsed by the Commission in a resolution, which went on to encourage member governments to continue to submit relevant information to the IWC and to future workshops and to take steps, including the provision of appropriate technical assistance, to improve the humaneness of aboriginal subsistence whaling.

  The Dall's porpoise hunt off the coast of Japan is the largest directed take of small cetaceans in the world. Recent information suggests that the level of catch may not be sustainable and the IWC adopted a resolution, put forward by the UK, expressing concern about the sustainability of the hunt, directing the IWC's Scientific Committee to carry out a full review of the affected stocks in 2001 and, in the meantime, inviting the government of Japan to reconsider the quota it sets for Dall's porpoises.

  A number of other issues were considered. There was a discussion on whalewatching, in which I emphasised the economic benefits of this activity, particularly in the Caribbean, and drew attention to the Guidelines of Whalewatching in the UK issued by the Government. A resolution was adopted drawing attention to the risk posed to consumers of whalemeat (including meat from small cetaceans) by the high levels of contaminants found in some samples, and requesting the IWC's Scientific Committee to monitor contaminant burdens in cetaceans and, where necessary, pass the information on to the World Health Organisation and appropriate national authorities. Other resolutions were agreed requesting the Scientific Committee to develop DNA methods for monitoring the origin of whalemeat as part of a control scheme for any future whaling and drawing attention to the continued threat posed to small populations of highly endangered whales by ship strikes, by-catches, and in a limited number of cases, whaling.

  Overall, this was a successful meeting for the UK. We achieved all our main objectives, and made progress towards our ultimate goals. My presence at the meeting underlined the importance that the Government attach to their policy of opposing whaling and to the role of the IWC.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Political and Human Rights
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding has been given by his Department to develop political and human rights parliamentary discussion groups in Commonwealth countries in each of the last three years. [84746]
  351
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  A number of FCO budget lines are used to support the development of pluralist democratic institutions and multi-party political systems. However, as a result of the devolved nature of some of these programmes the information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  While part of the FCO's grant-in-aid to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy has been used by WFD to fund various cross-party projects, these are generally to facilitate training. WFD do not fund round-table discussion groups or attendance at conferences.

  Diplomatic Immunity
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which foreign embassies and high commissions have refused to waive diplomatic immunity when requested to do so, in each of the last three years. [85369]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 25 May 1999]None, in 1996, 1997, 1998. However, there has been one such case in 1999, on which further action is being pursued. It would, therefore, not be appropriate at this stage to identify the Mission concerned.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many foreign embassies and high commissions have waived diplomatic immunity in respect of offences committed by their staff or their staff's families in each of the last three years. [85368]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 25 May 1999]The number of times on which a state has waived the immunity of a diplomatic agent in the last three calender years is as follows:1996—One
  1997—One
  1998—None
  1999—One (as of 8 June).

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many diplomats have been withdrawn by foreign countries from the United Kingdom at the request of the Government as a consequence of alleged crimes committed in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [85370]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 25 May 1999]In accordance with the guidelines laid out in the 1985 White Paper—The recommendations of the Government Report on Review of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Reply to "The Abuse of Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges"—the following were formally asked to leave the United Kingdom in the last three calendar years:1996—Five diplomats and families; One dependant of an accredited diplomat
  1997—One diplomat and family
  1998—Two dependants of accredited diplomats
  1999—None (as of 8 June).

  Cyprus (Drug Offences)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British nationals have been charged with drug offences while staying in Cyprus in each of the last three years. [85516]

  Mr. Hoon
  The number of British nationals charged with drugs offences while visiting, (but not resident) in Cyprus and reported to our Consular service, was 19 in 1996, 17 in 1997 and 33 in 1998.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Sierra Leone. [85551]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We welcome the recent signing of a ceasefire agreement. We hope that the current negotiations in Lome between the Government of Sierra Leone and the rebels will lead to a sustainable peace. We support President Kabbah's commitment to dialogue, and look to all rebel factions to commit themselves to the peace process, and end the violence and atrocities that have beset the people of Sierra Leone for so long.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what action he is taking within the EU to put pressure on Turkey to comply with the judgment in the Loizidou case; [85626]

  (2) what action he is taking to persuade Turkey to comply with the judgment in the Loizidou case. [R][85627]

  Ms Quin
  We and our EU partners continue to make clear to Turkey the need to respect the Court's judgment in this case, including in the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers' Deputies. At its last meeting on 27 May the Committee of Ministers' Deputies agreed that its Chair would write to Turkey asking for clarification of Turkey's intentions. We will continue to discuss with EU partners, as with other members of the Council of Europe, how best to achieve Turkish implementation of the Court's judgment.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indonesian Government, and what representations he has received, concerning the massacre of unarmed civilians on 3 May near the city of Lhokseumawe. [85954]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are deeply disturbed by the incident in Lhokseumawe on 3 May in which a number of unarmed civilians, including women and children, were killed or injured. The late Derek Fatchett expressed our concern in a statement on 7 May which looked to the Indonesian Government to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident, to bring to account those responsible and to take all possible steps to ensure that local armed forces act with restraint and in accordance with basic human rights.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Indonesia on measures to protect the Christian and
  353
  Chinese minorities in that country from violence in the period before the general election; and if he will make a statement. [85649]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have consistently made clear to the Indonesian Government that the international community closely monitors the treatment of all minority groups in Indonesia, including Christians and the ethnic-Chinese community.

  British Council (Manchester)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when he intends to inform British Council staff based in Manchester of his detailed proposals for changes in the staffing and functions of the Manchester office; [86108]

  (2) what proposals he has to change (a) the number of British Council staff in Manchester and (b) the functions of the British Council which are currently based in Manchester. [86109]

  Mr. Hoon
  Issues concerning staff, their duties and location are matters for the British Council. I understand that there are no proposals to change staffing and functions based in Manchester. The British Council is committed to its Manchester location until 2002 when there is an option to continue the leases on its current accommodation. The British Council is reviewing the options on premises and staffing in the light of its overall strategy and funding. Staff and their representatives will continue to be informed and consulted.

  Libya
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has, following the suspension of UN sanctions, to lift the national controls on the export of aircraft, aircraft parts and flight simulators to Libya; and if he will make a statement.[86612]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government have decided to lift the controls on the export of aircraft, aircraft parts and flight simulators to Libya under the provisions of Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1996, as amended. Legislation will be laid before the House shortly. This decision follows the suspension on 5 April of UN sanctions, which included a prohibition on the supply of any aircraft or aircraft components to Libya.

  The Foreign Office will issue a press release later today. The "Summary of Government Commitments regarding the Application of Strategic Export Controls" will be amended and updated versions placed in the Libraries of the House and on the FCO Website. The Department of Trade and Industry will issue a Notice to Exporters before the amending legislation takes effect.

  Iran
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the export of arms to Iran. [86615]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  There has been no change to current policy, as set out in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King) on 28 January 1998,Official Report, columns 273–74.
  354
  Further to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) on 25 March 1999, Official Report, column 343, my Department and the Ministry of Defence have approved the issue of a licence by the Department of Trade and Industry, as an exception to our embargo on Iran, for the export of 1,020 bullet proof vests to the United Nations Drug Control Programme to equip Iranian frontier personnel. The bullet proof vests will enhance the capacity of Iran's frontier personnel to combat drug trafficking and reduce the sad toll of casualties which they have borne in the past 20 years.

  Yugoslavia (Fuel Embargo)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what legislative steps have been taken to provide for a visit and search regime in respect of ships suspected of carrying fuel to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in breach of the EU-led embargo; and if he will make a statement. [86614]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The North Atlantic Council agreed a visit and search regime for ships suspected of carrying fuel to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 25 May. The regime is based on the consent of participating states.

  To enable the United Kingdom to participate fully in this regime legislation allowing Royal Navy vessels to visit and search British ships outside UK waters came into force on 3 June.

  The necessary enforcement powers in respect of United Kingdom ships are contained in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Supply, Sale and Export of Petroleum and Petroleum Products) (No.2) Regulations 1999 which revoke the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Supply, Sale and Export of Petroleum and Petroleum Products) Regulations 1999.

  The Dependent Territories (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) (Supply, Sale and Export of Petroleum and Petroleum Products) Order 1999 imposes, by way of the prerogative, an oil embargo against the FRY in the Overseas Territories except for Bermuda and Gibraltar, with similar enforcement powers, in respect of ships registered in the territories concerned, to those in the Regulations. The UK does not have powers under the prerogative to legislate for Bermuda, which has been asked to legislate in similar terms. The EC Regulation is directly applicable in Gibraltar which will be legislating locally.

  The EC Regulation is not directly applicable to the Crown Dependencies. The Channel Islands have already legislated locally and the Isle of Man will do so shortly.

  UN Register of Conventional Arms
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom will submit its 1999 return to the UN Register of Conventional Arms; and whether copies of the return will be placed in the Library. [86616]

  Mr. Hoon
  We submitted our 1999 return to the UN Register covering conventional arms transfers in calendar year 1998 on 27 May. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Diplomatic Parking Fines
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish figures recording the number of outstanding parking and other minor traffic violation fines incurred by diplomatic missions and international organisations in London during 1998. [86613]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  At the end of 1998 there were 4,259 unpaid fines in respect of parking and other minor traffic violations incurred by members of Diplomatic Missions and International Organisations in London.

  In April this year the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote to all Diplomatic Missions and International Organisations in London offering them an opportunity to either pay their outstanding fines or appeal against them if they considered that they had been incorrectly issued. As a result payments totalling £66,200.00 were received and a number of fines were cancelled, leaving a total of 2,667 unpaid fines for 1998. The following table details Diplomatic Missions and International Organisations which have more than 10 fines outstanding.

  colspan="3" align="center">Unpaid parking and minor traffic violation fines— 1998—diplomatic vehicles

  Position

  Diplomatic mission/international Organisation

  Number of fines outstanding

  1

  Ghana

  153

  2

  Nigeria

  130

  3

  Turkey

  117

  4

  Oman

  105

  5

  Angola

  102

  6

  United Arab Emirates

  101

  7

  Egypt

  87

  8

  Jordan

  84

  9

  Morocco

  82

  10

  Cyprus

  75

  11

  Greece

  73

  12

  Cuba

  68

  13

  Sudan

  67

  14

  Russia

  59

  15

  Zimbabwe

  58

  16

  Jamaica

  55

  17

  Hungary

  50

  18

  Algeria

  47

  18

  Iran

  47

  18

  Poland

  47

  21

  Liberia

  45

  22

  Georgia

  44

  23

  Mongolia

  37

  24

  Japan

  36

  25

  Thailand

  34

  26

  USA

  33

  27

  Cameroon

  32

  27

  Ethiopia

  32

  27

  Uganda

  32

  30

  Bangladesh

  28

  31

  Afghanistan

  26

  31

  India

  26

  33

  France

  25

  34

  Pakistan

  24

  34

  Ukraine

  24

  36

  Yemen

  23

  37

  Brazil

  21

  37

  Lithuania

  21

  37

  Uzbekistan

  21

  40

  Belarus

  20

  41

  Bulgaria

  19

  41

  Tunisia

  19

  43

  Albania

  18

  43

  Malaysia

  18

  356

  colspan="3" align="center">Unpaid parking and minor traffic violation fines—1998—diplomatic vehicles

  Position

  Diplomatic mission/international Organisation

  Number of fines outstanding

  45

  Barbados

  15

  45

  China

  15

  45

  Philippines

  15

  45

  International Maritime Organisation

  15

  49

  Qatar

  14

  50

  Kyrgyzstan

  13

  50

  Zambia

  13

  52

  Gabon

  12

  52

  Kenya

  12

  52

  Malawi

  12

  52

  Peru

  12

  56

  Canada

  11

  56

  Eastern Caribbean States

  11

  2,435

WALES

  Regional Air Service
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he has made in respect of supporting the establishment of a regional air service in Wales. [85163]

  Mr. Hain
  Our current study to improve air services for Wales will be taken forward by the National Assembly for Wales in collaboration with the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Structural Funding
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held recently with Treasury and Department of Trade and Industry Ministers to secure matched funding for objectives 1 and 2 structural funding for east Wales. [85164]

  Mr. Michael
  This Government's success in securing such a significant level of funding for Wales under the new EC Structural Funds programmes has been discussed at ministerial level. I am sure the hon. Member will want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and Welsh Labour Members of the European Parliament who worked so hard to secure this important opportunity for Wales.

  Cabinet Decisions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what mechanisms exist for informing the National Assembly of(a) decisions in and (b) representations from Cabinet meetings in respect of matters relating to Wales. [85165]

  Mr. Michael
  Concordats between the Assembly and the UK Government will cover the provision of information to the Assembly, including the passing on of Cabinet decisions. Under the Government of Wales Act 1998, it is the duty of the Secretary of State for Wales to consult the Assembly on the Government's legislative programme. There will also be regular contact at a ministerial level between the Assembly and other Government Departments as there will be between officials.

  School Transport
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the provision of home to school transport. [85166]

  Mr. Hain
  The provision of home to school transport is a matter for local education authorities. Each LEA must publish a home to school transport policy which sets out arrangements for its area. The School Transport Advisory Group (STAG) has been commissioned to provide advice on school transport. A sub group of STAG is looking specifically at home to school transport arrangements. The Group has been asked to report its findings by the end of the year.

  Junior Ministers
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the number of junior Ministers he expects to serve in his Department after 1 July. [85168]

  Mr. Michael
  That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Secretary of State
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he plans to divide his time between his responsibilities as Secretary of State and his functions within the National Assembly.[85169]

  Mr. Michael
  Whether as Secretary of State for Wales or as First Secretary, my priority will be to serve the people of Wales and to deliver a stronger economy, an improved health service, jobs and opportunity for our young people and better education and training systems in Wales. By occupying both roles during the crucial transition period I will be able to ensure a smooth transfer of powers which keeps these priorities clearly in focus at the Welsh Office and the Assembly.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what payments he has received from public funds as Secretary of State for Wales. [85171]

  Mr. Michael
  Between October 1998, when I was appointed as Secretary of State for Wales, and the end of May 1999, I have been paid £27,299 from public funds in respect of that office.

  Children's Heart Surgery
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to restart children's heart surgery in Wales. [85170]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Specialised Health Services Commission for Wales is currently preparing a report on the options for the future provision of paediatric cardiac surgery and paediatric cardiology services in Wales. This will shortly be considered by its Board and will take into account the importance of maintaining services at the University Hospital of Wales and Llandough Hospital NHS Trust. These options will then be the subject of wide discussion within the NHS and with other interested parties.
  358
  In the meantime, children needing cardiac surgery will continue to be referred to those centres that can most appropriately treat their particular condition.

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

  Kosovo Refugees
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps the Welsh Office is taking to co-ordinate the reception of refugees from Kosovo. [85172]

  Mr. Michael
  My officials have been liaising closely with colleagues at the Home Office who are in the lead on this issue on arrangements which would need to be put in place should we receive refugees from Kosovo in Wales. They are also providing information to all agencies in Wales who have an interest in this matter. My Department is also considering what resources would be required to co-ordinate these arrangements although the Home Office has advised that there are no immediate plans for refugees to come to Wales.

  The role currently undertaken by my Department will be taken over by the National Assembly for Wales with effect from 1 July.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of Ministers in his Department following the transfer of powers to the National Assembly for Wales [85174]

  Mr. Michael
  Ministers in the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales will have the following functions after the transfer of functions to the Assembly on 1 July:

  Functions relating to their membership of the UK Government.

  Responsibility to ensure that the interests of Wales are fully considered in the workings of the UK Government.

  Responsibility to steer primary legislation relating to Wales through Parliament.

  Functions relating to the fact that this House will vote the Main Estimate to the Secretary of State for Wales, who will make a grant to the Assembly after deducting the cost of running his own office.

  Responsibility to consult the Assembly on the Government's legislative programme.

  Responsibility to ensure that the arrangements for co-operation between the Assembly and the UK Government are working effectively.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact that his newly acquired responsibilities in the National Assembly will have upon the discharge of his functions as Secretary of State. [85173]

  Mr. Michael
  The advent of the National Assembly for Wales will strengthen the United Kingdom and improve the way that services are delivered to the people of Wales. I shall be able to achieve substantial improvement in the effectiveness of my role of Secretary of State as a result of close co-operation with Members of the Assembly and others.

  EU Funding
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans the Government have for increasing funding from the European Union to Wales for investment in infrastructure and the public services. [85175]

  Mr. Hain
  Under the relevant EU Regulations, West Wales and the Valleys qualify for Objective 1 funding. We are currently consulting on possible Objective 2 areas. Infrastructure measures could be eligible for funding in both Objective 1 and Objective 2 areas.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received regarding the levels of farm incomes in Wales. [85176]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The latest estimates of incomes for full-time farmers in Wales were published in February 1999. The figures show the cash income for dairy and livestock farms in Wales is forecast to fall by 21 per cent. in 1998–99, to £17,900.

  Rural Livestock Markets
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received with regard to the future of rural livestock markets. [85177]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  We have received no recent representations with regard to the future of rural livestock markets.

  The Lamb and Beef Action Plan, prepared by the industry-led working groups which my right hon. Friend launched together with the group chairmen on 8 March, encourages livestock markets in Wales to re-appraise their position and plan for the future. It is important for the competitive health of the Welsh livestock industry that a strategic network of livestock marketing centres should remain.

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

  Job Creation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new jobs have been created in the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [85178]

  Mr. Hain
  The unadjusted number of employee jobs in Wales increased by 11,100 (1.1 per cent.) between December 1997 and December 1998. It now stands at just over 1 million.

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

  Draft Concordat
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the concordat between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Welsh Office governing the relationship between Government departments and the National Assembly of Wales to be published. [85179]
  360
  Mr. Michael
  All concordats will be agreed between the National Assembly for Wales and the UK Government. They will be published as soon as agreement has been secured.

  Objective 1 Funding
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what procedures will be employed to evaluate project proposals for objective 1 funding in the months before the Government have made a decision on match funding. [85180]

  Mr. Hain
  No decisions have yet been taken about implementation procedures for Structural Fund programmes under the new Regulations for 2000–06. This will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Assembly Costs
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his current estimate of(a) the capital cost and (b) the running cost of the Welsh National Assembly in its first year of operation. [85181]

  Mr. Michael
  The capital cost of providing temporary and permanent accommodation for the National Assembly for Wales is estimated at £17 million to £20 million, although this estimate must be regarded as provisional until the final design for the new building is agreed.

  We are continuing to plan within the overall estimate of £15 million to £20 million for the annual additional running costs of the Assembly which was contained with the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Government of Wales Bill and which will be balanced by savings in the budgets of Welsh quangos; our latest detailed estimate for 1999–2000 is £19.2 million.

  Following the transfer of functions on 1 July, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  New Deal
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the employment effect of the new deal in Wales to date. [85182]

  Mr. Hain
  I have been very pleased with the progress of the New Deal in Wales. The latest information shows that over 8,600 New Deal participants have obtained jobs through one or other of the New Deal initiatives.

  Within this total, the New Deal for 18–24s has seen over 6,500 jobs secured by young people, including over 4,800 sustained jobs lasting at least 13 weeks.

  The impact on youth unemployment has been there for all to see, with a massive 44 per cent. drop in the number of 18–24-year-olds claiming JSA for 6 months or more in Wales between April 1998 and April 1999.

  NHS Specialist Regional Services
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funding he has made available for the current year for specialist regional services in the national health service. [85183]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The funding of specialised health services is a matter for health authorities and the Specialised Health Services Commission for Wales.
  361
  Welsh health authorities will receive more than £2 billion for 1999–2000, some £1.5 billion of which will be included within their discretionary allocations, an increase of 10.3 per cent. over 1998–99.

  A further £120 million is included with allocations for protected and ring fenced services. Included within this is:
  £9.2 million which is the final year of ring-fenced funding for the Morriston cardiac centre
  £12.6 million for the Artificial Limb and Appliance Service
  £6.7 million for High Security Psychiatric Services
  £1.9 million for Paediatric Intensive Care services.

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

  Milk Industry
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to safeguard the position of the Welsh milk industry. [85184]
  362
  Mr. Michael
  With the National Assembly Secretary for Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Christine Gwyther I met farming leaders on Monday 24 May. The Action Plan for the Dairy industry in Wales, published in March 1999, sets out a positive agenda through which the Welsh Development Agency and the National Assembly will be able to work with the industry to help it adapt and invest in the dairy processing facilities which are essential for future prosperity in the sector.

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

  Livestock Farming
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received since 1 May 1997 from the Vegetarian Society on livestock farming in Wales. [85167]

  Mr. Michael
  None.

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

Driving Licences
Baroness Knight of Collingtree Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to make it easier to apply for the new personal photograph driving licences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, there are no immediate plans to change driving licence application procedures. However, as a longer term option the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) is exploring the possibility of establishing electronic links with other government departments. This would considerably reduce the need to supply original identity documents and thus make the application process easier.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, does he accept that there is real worry on the part of applicants who are forced to send originals of birth certificates, passports and marriage certificates—and, if one is a Member of this House, a Writ of Summons—through the post? Such documents are extremely valuable to their owners and could be of considerable value to the criminal fraternity. Will the Minister try to ensure that the DVLA returns these documents either by registered post or by recorded delivery or, alternatively, that it again permits copies of these documents to be sent?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the decision to cease to accept copies of these documents was not taken by the DVLA but across government and resulted from the increased incidence of fraud. It is alleged that obtaining a driving licence is one of the easiest ways to establish a totally new identity because often a driving licence is accepted as a form of identity card, although that should not happen. Until the incidence of fraud is reduced, the DVLA and certain other government agencies will still require original documents to be submitted. As regards postage, the DVLA does not require individuals to send their documents by registered post. The DVLA has considered whether to return documents by registered post. However, that would of course have a cost implication and the driving licence regime is required to cover its costs. Therefore the return of original documents by registered post or recorded delivery would have a cost implication on the driving licence regime.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I suggest to the Minister that the directions on the form are not clear.
1424
I at last have one of these licences and I think they are a good idea but the process of sending documents back and forth is extremely complicated. Will the Minister consider submitting the relevant directions for examination by the Plain English Campaign?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, having recently filled in one of these forms I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness. However, we are trying our best to improve the ease with which people can fill in the forms and also to make them electronically readable so as to speed up the process we are discussing; sometimes the two processes move in opposite directions. However, we shall give serious consideration to redesigning the forms, particularly when all new driving licences will comprise photocards after 2001.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when one goes to a post office and asks for an application form for a new driving licence, one is given a piece of paper which states,
"Don't be a REJECT! Many photocard applications are being rejected"?
This obviously implies that the form is indeed complicated and this new driving licence is not at all easy to apply for, as my noble friend stated in her Question. What proportion of photocard applications are being rejected? As most people who apply for a photocard driving licence will have to send in their passports, and given the record of the present Government with regard to passports at the moment—as everyone is aware from reports in the newspapers, this is a complete shambles—will the Government give an assurance that the DVLA will return people's passports with a good deal more expedition than does the Home Office at the moment?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the return of documents, despite the occasional problem, the DVLA has quite a good record in terms of returning documents quickly as compared with certain other government agencies that the noble Lord mentioned. However, I am sure that the Passport Agency is also improving its performance, as no doubt my noble friend Lord Williams will confirm. The point I made in my original Answer is that if there were an electronic interface between the Passport Agency and the DVLA, as the Passport Agency undertakes detailed checks on applicants it could transfer that information by electronic means to the DVLA and thereby speed up the whole process. That is an example of electronic joined-up government which we hope to achieve within the next couple of years.
As regards rejection, a small proportion of forms are rejected. However, the DVLA deals with 37 million applications. I cannot give the noble Lord the exact figure for rejections, but even if it is a point of a percentage that is a large figure in total. Therefore it is important to follow the advice of the Post Office and the DVLA, which advise people to ensure that when

1425
filling in the form they keep their signature and other information within the relevant boxes on the form as that makes the information computer readable.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the Minister entirely approve of the following situation? I went to the security office downstairs to obtain a photograph of myself; I forwarded it with an application to Swansea; and I had it returned to me on the ground that it was not up to the DVLA standard. Ought we not to consider either raising our standards or lowering those of the DVLA?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is no possible way in which I can suggest raising the noble Earl's standards. Problems are experienced with computer-readable photographs where the photograph is off-centre. The cause may lie with the machine downstairs. That is a matter for the House authorities. However, we regret such incidents and obviously try to minimise them.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will the Minister placate my noble friend's concern about sending a Writ of Summons by post? Will he assure her that they are of no great avail because 700 people who are in receipt of Writs of Summons will soon have them invalidated?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is not entirely true. Before the imminent constitutional changes, a Writ of Summons indicates that the bearer has been called to the peerage. There will be other documentation in the future; the title is not altered. As I understand it, the DVLA, having the rest of the information, will normally check whether a different title from that indicated on the earlier documentation is appropriate. That will be done using reference books. In some cases the DVLA will ask for additional material. I am not entirely clear why that should be so in the noble Baroness's case and I will make further enquiries.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister say how often photographs will have to be changed? Will it be the same system, where one gets one's licence, holds it until the age of 70 and thereafter has to have it renewed every three years? If so, how identifiable will one be? Will those who seek to renew their licence after the age of 70—I assume the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, is in that category—have to produce the same documentation every three years, even if they have had a licence for perhaps 40 years?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the UK is probably almost the last country to change to a photo-based licence. As at present, the licence will be valid until the age of 70. But the photograph—not the remainder of the documentation—will have to be renewed every 10 years. As far as concerns renewal past the age of 70, as I understand it, once the documentation is established at 70, one will not have to provide the material again at 73 and 76. I will write to the noble Baroness if I am wrong about that.

South Africa: Education Funding
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Berners Baroness Berners asked Her Majesty's Government:
What funding they are sending to South Africa to support non-governmental organisations who are working to improve standards of education within black communities.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, one of South Africa's major development challenges is better education for the communities disadvantaged by apartheid and it is a priority for our development partnership. We are working to help improve school and adult education in some of South Africa's poorest provinces. The programme draws on the services of local non-governmental organisations. We plan this financial year to spend around £5 million on support to education in South Africa. We also plan to provide about £150,000 this year through the Joint Funding Scheme for NGOs working in education in South Africa.
Baroness Berners: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. I know that she is aware of the terrible legacy of a whole generation of black African education neglect. It has engendered so much poverty that only major initiatives can make any improvement to this appalling scenario and give some hope to the rising generation. Does the Minister agree that the main areas of concern are in pre-primary, primary and junior high school education? In order that the basic grounding can be set in place, what research have the Government carried out in rural areas to establish local needs? What monitoring is subsequently carried out to ensure that the funds are properly used?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that apartheid has left a terrible legacy in South Africa. The main areas of our programme cross all sectors of education, including adult education. A considerable amount of work has been done at local level, particularly in some of the poorest provinces of South Africa, with local NGOs and provincial government, as well as with national government, to identify the priority areas in different provinces. I will be happy to write to the noble Baroness to explain some of the detail of that work. As far as concerns monitoring, we always set monitoring in place when we support any project. We are helping the South African Government to develop better performance indicators for the work they are doing in this area.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, following the general election in South Africa, one of the greatest challenges facing President Thabo Mbeki will be not only to reduce the escalating levels of crime but also to reduce the high levels of unemployment? Among black people under the age of 25, almost 50 per cent are unemployed. I welcome the Government's support to NGOs. However, do they have plans to promote vocational and skills training to assist not merely those who have

1427
recently completed their education but also more elderly members of the population to prepare themselves for the job market?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord's mention of the general election offers me an opportunity to congratulate the South African Government on the successful outcome, and to place on public record the fact that the elections were not marred by the kind of violence that has been seen in the past.
The noble Lord raised a specific question regarding crime and high levels of unemployment. The South African Government are well aware that in their social agenda they need to take these issues on board. Our own programme in South Africa includes not merely education but other areas as well; 15 per cent of our aid budget in South Africa is spent on education and training, not merely education. The noble Lord's point regarding vocational skills and training is being taken on board.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, having just returned from seeing the elections in South Africa last week, perhaps I may join with those who wish to congratulate the President, Thabo Mbeki, and wish him a successful future. Is the noble Baroness aware that among voters in South Africa there is a great deal of optimism for the future of democracy and a great deal of enthusiasm for future developments? Does the noble Baroness agree that in relation to NGOs, who undoubtedly do a tremendous job, spending priorities must lie with the South African Government?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there is a great deal of optimism in South Africa regarding the future, although, as I have mentioned, a number of social issues need to be addressed. On the question of NGOs and our partnership in South Africa, a key element referred to in our White Paper on the elimination of world poverty is working in partnership not merely with government but with NGOs, the business sector, trade unions and so on. That is the approach we have taken in South Africa. Our country strategy paper was agreed following consultation with all of those groups. It is important that, in terms of bilateral work, we agree our priorities with the South African Government.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the universities in South Africa need an international partnership? During the period of apartheid British universities were extremely helpful in providing scholarships to those who opposed the then South African regime. President Mbeki is, after all, a graduate of Sussex University. Are the Government giving attention to maintaining that level of partnership? In a situation in which American universities will be extremely active in pursuing partnership, British universities should attempt to maintain a useful intellectual relationship.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am happy to agree with the noble Lord. A number of British universities are
1428
working in direct partnership with their South African counterparts in terms of the exchange of knowledge, ideas and expertise, as well as promoting student exchanges. The British Council is also active in the area of scholarships. There is a great of contact and partnership in this area.

E-Commerce Envoy
2.53 p.m.
Lord Chadlington Lord Chadlington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have not appointed an e-commerce envoy to promote the new technology, despite advertising the post in November 1998.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. no final decisions have yet been taken. The Government plan to make an announcement on the e-envoy shortly.
Lord Chadlington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. About 10 million people in Britain now have access to the Internet; and it is estimated that about 5 per cent of world trade will be conducted by e-commerce within five years. What practical policies do the Government propose to protect consumers in this new environment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government agree strongly with the argument behind the noble Lord's remarks. We recognise that electronic commerce is increasing, and that it will and ought to increase. We have announced, both in our competitiveness White Paper and in the White Paper, Modernising Government, quite ambitious targets for our response to it. These are enormously important matters, as is recognised in the fact that the appointment referred to in the noble Lord's Question is a prime ministerial appointment. The Prime Minister takes it extremely seriously, as we do.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I declare an interest as an officer in an organisation with an interest in electronic commerce. Does the noble Lord agree with the report's conclusion that, while protecting the interests of consumers, it is important to focus on measures that will facilitate electronic commerce, rather than run the risk of delay through over-regulation which may inhibit such commerce'? In particular, can priority be given, first, to ensuring a proper legal basis for contracts and signatures on the Internet and, secondly, to ensuring proper jurisdiction over tax for trade on the Internet?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. These issues must be addressed, and are being addressed, in the development of the legislation on e-commerce that was announced in the Queen's Speech. They are extremely complex issues.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, on the subject of protecting consumer interests, is the noble Lord aware that Lloyds Bank Internet banking service failed to

1429
complete over 1,500 transactions over the previous Bank Holiday, and that a spokesman explained that it was because the computer system had failed to recognise that it was a Bank Holiday? Will the noble Lord assure us that, when the e-envoy, as he is popularly called, is appointed, he will do his best to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen again?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not know of the incident to which the noble Lord refers. I thought that Bank Holidays were set up for the benefit of banks, and that banks would be the first to recognise them. That is not quite how we see the role of the e-envoy. We see it as a marketing and promotional role rather than the regulatory role that is implied by the noble Lord.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, although the noble Lord is making an excellent job of answering these questions, as he always does, I am sorry that the Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry is not present. The report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee of another place which made the criticism referred to by my noble friend Lord Chadlington is critical of many aspects of the Government's approach to their forthcoming electronic commerce Bill. In regard to electronic signatures, at paragraph 40 of its report the committee points to the omission of consultation regarding the place of electronic signatures in Scots law as a serious omission. What are the Government doing to remedy this urgent matter? If the noble Lord cannot answer now, perhaps he will write to me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury. who is the Minister responsible for these matters, is on government business in the United States this week. He would have taken this Question had he been available to do so. I apologise for my inadequate presence in his absence.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness's point goes wide of the Question. She asks a detailed question about a Treasury Select Committee report on an electronic commerce Bill. The Question relates to an e-envoy. If there is an answer that I can send to the noble Baroness, I shall certainly do so.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, can the Minister give any indication as to the likely timetable for the e-commerce Bill? For my part, I shall accept his answer, unlike the previous questioner.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. The complex issues to which I referred are still not fully
1430
resolved. It would be our intention to start the Bill on its progress during this Session. But it would be very unwise for me to be more precise than that.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the major French banks has set up a system whereby people can trade on the Internet with complete security?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I learn a lot at this Dispatch Box, things I did not know about Scots law, French banking and Lloyds Bank. I am grateful to my noble friend for the information. I shall ensure that the success of whichever French bank it is in achieving security is brought to the notice of those who seek to achieve security in electronic commerce in this country. It is a most helpful suggestion.

National Strategy for Carers
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley Baroness Pitkeathley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made on the implementation of the national carers' strategy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, since the publication of the National Strategy for Carers in February, the Government have acted on a number of issues, including the special grant for carers to have a break from caring and issuing the draft long-term care charter for consultation. We have recently written to the main carers' organisations and other interested bodies explaining how we intend to implement further key policy strands. I am placing a copy of this letter outlining our plans for further action by April 2000 in the Library of the House.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. She will know that it is a year today since the Prime Minister first announced the national strategy for carers. Carers everywhere and their organisations are extremely grateful for the progress that has been made. It is National Carers' Week again, and the Carers National Association has recently published a report, We're in this Together, showing that caring is still a source of huge stress and strain within family relationships.
In view of that, can the Minister tell the House what progress has been made on bringing in legislation to give carers a right to services to help them with their caring duties, as opposed to the right to an assessment, to which they are entitled under the carers Act?
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords. Since it is National Carers' Week, it is appropriate to pay tribute to the outstanding work of my noble friend in the field in terms of focusing attention on the needs and contributions of carers throughout the United Kingdom. I think she will understand that I cannot anticipate the future legislative programme, but we recognised clearly

1431
in the carers' strategy the difficulties inherent in the current position We made clear our intention to extend the powers of local authorities to provide services to carers and to introduce legislation when parliamentary time allows. That was again made clear in the letter that was issued this week.
Lord Laming: My Lords, does the Minister agree that because of improved health and social care there has been a huge increase across the whole of the age spectrum of people living much longer, despite disabilities of one kind or another? We should bear in mind that most of those people live in the community rather than in hospital. Does she agree that this has placed a great burden upon carers? That being so, does the Minister agree that every local authority should have a strategy in place to identify carers and ways of providing them with proper support and help?
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord is absolutely right in pointing out that we need to pinpoint those organisations that can give support to carers. One in six households in this country now contains a carer. They contribute an enormous amount and deserve more support, as well as more recognition than they have had in the past. Local authorities have a specific role to play. The recently announced awards scheme will draw the attention of the public and carers to their needs and to how organisations, employers and local authorities can support them. It will be very valuable.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what information the Government seek to obtain in the next national census on the number of carers, the kind of work they are doing and their needs?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the work on the exact details of what the census question will contain is part of the activities outlined in the programme of action that my honourable friend John Hutton described this week. That question will be absolutely crucial; it will be the first time that we have a question on carers in the census and it will give us a better base of information from which to work than in the past.
Lord Addington: My Lords, along with the aim of helping carers in their own right, can the Government give us an assurance as to whether they will introduce the second state pension for carers within this Parliament as opposed to having to wait for a new one?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, again I cannot anticipate the legislative programme. However, in our manifesto we promised that we would look into the matter. Carers will receive flat-rate credits for the new state second pension so that in broad terms they will get £1 a week pension for each qualifying year. Roughly 2.5 million carers, including 2 million child benefit cases, will begin to build up credits from the scheme's inception.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the fundamental needs of
1432
carers is to have regular breaks, especially when they are caring for elderly people suffering from Alzheimer's disease?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree. That is why one of the first actions taken after the carers' strategy was announced was the introduction of special grants to allow carers to have just such a break from caring.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the research mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, indicates that many families find the social security system complex and off-putting? They find it hard to obtain comprehensive information about available benefits. What plans do the Government have to make the social security system more user-friendly?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there is an enormous challenge in making the social security system more user-friendly. I know that my noble friend Lady Hollis and others are rising to it within the department. But there are ways in which we can help carers specifically. One of the interesting ways that is being supported by the Government and the Department of Health is the StartHere project, which provides accessible information on a wide range of subjects that include social security, specifically aimed at carers.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge set down for today shall be limited to three-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Viscount Montgomery of Alamein to two-and-a-half hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sport
3.6 p.m.
Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge rose to call attention to measures to improve sport in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to invite your Lordships to give thought to some of the issues facing sport in the UK, particularly the games' players and team games. I count it a privilege to lead this debate.
There are three areas of particular concern. I pause for a second to see whether Black Rod, with his sword, is in his seat because—I now tremble—he may well be commanded to usher me out of the Chamber for treachery! I certainly could not have made these remarks in 1940. At the highest level—the international front—I begin to wonder how we can get back to the top, how this country can be top dog again in the major team

1433
sports. It is a challenging comment and I need to alert everyone to the stark reality of the situation and the challenge ahead; serious action must be taken.
Secondly, I should like to ring out a clarion call from this House across the country demanding higher standards of sportsmanship and fair play. At every level, from the top to the bottom—and the bottom copy the top, especially now that television is so powerful—we have to put the fun and true spirit of sport back into what has become far too serious a business of sport.
Thirdly, more difficult because of the logistic complications—and I understand them well—we must do all we can to encourage some team games in the daily run of a school curriculum.
On a positive and more cheerful note for a minute, we must take pride in the astonishing range of sports on show in this country in the months of May, June and July, each one with its own character and style, presented in the most sophisticated way. Many of them are historic showpieces attracting huge crowds on the ground and millions tuning in to radio and television across the world. This being the winter season for the southern hemisphere, sportsmen come here in droves to participate in soccer, Rugby Union, Rugby League and all the rest of it. We move to Wimbledon which is the last grass court championship left in the world. It is laid on with such style and distinction that, happily, all the best players in the world go there to play and win. Ascot, Henley and Silverstone are three of the highest quality events in the world. We also have the Test Matches and this year we host the World Cup. We also have athletics and swimming championships. The pièce de resistance is the gold nugget of golf: the Open.
This is a unique vista and we would do well to pause and be grateful for it. Those on the periphery of sport may well be excused for thinking that there cannot be a lot wrong with sport in the UK. It is only when we get to the highly competitive level and study in greater depth the prowess and stature of our top sportsmen and women in comparison with their overseas counterparts that we begin to notice a difference in flare and skill. It is not a great difference but it is enough to put us second and third best. We who are proud of British sport, the followers, do not enjoy that at all.
I believe that in this country we are superbly served—better than most countries—by a number of well organised sporting administrative bodies. I have a huge regard for the work of the new UK Sports Council, UK Sport, Sport England—which is the English Sports Council—the CCPR, the Sport Aid Foundation, which is doing a tremendous amount of work on the Olympics, the National Playing Fields Association and the relatively new and privately-led Sports Youth Trust. We are very lucky to have all those bodies in place.
I applaud the contribution of a number of these bodies in supporting the British Olympic Association and members of the team as they prepare to win Olympic medals in Sydney next year. It is very skilfully and professionally organised. We need the same kind of attention for team games. It is a more difficult exercise
1434
but somehow we must seek it. I believe that all those who realise the plight of our team games will be ready to assist.
It would be churlish to overlook the successes of individual sports. We have been very good at golf over the past 10 years. We have the finest players of the day. Perhaps the most successful sport of all—presided over by my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare—is snooker which continues to be hugely entertaining. We remain very good at it.
Today, my rally is exclusively on behalf of team sports at international level: Rugby Union, Rugby League, soccer, cricket, hockey, rowing, basketball and one or two other minor ones. The plight of our team sports must be addressed if we wish to catch up with the rest of the world. Many other countries have moved on dramatically and are leaving us behind. There is a host of reasons for this which are clear to everybody. The main one is climate. We are probably the only people who have to survive a winter. Most other youngsters play for six, seven or eight months with sunshine on their backs. Other 18 year-olds are fitter, livelier, more supple and better movers.
In my lifetime we have come to expect that our success at international level is cyclical: we have ups and downs and our turn will come round again provided we work at it. But now the scene is different. We cannot afford to wait for that cyclical change. We must go on the offensive and properly co-ordinate the various bodies. I feel that we have all the guns and that the talent is there too, if we make better use of it. The UK Sports Council—UK Sport—has set up a world champion programme with appropriate funding. I welcome that initiative. I have recently talked to Chris Woodward, the rugby manager and coach who is in Australia preparing for the World Cup. I have also spoken to Kevin Keegan about his daunting task. We have not yet appointed the captain and coach to take on England cricket. All three have a fearsome course. The jumps look pretty daunting and they will need all the help that anyone can give.
Money must be spent but it must be spent wisely. I know that everyone in this House agrees that money alone cannot ensure success in the making of winning champions. There is a host of elusive personal qualities that we must instil at an early stage: strict personal self-discipline, the hunger to improve, the humility to listen and learn, and the determination to keep fighting even though sport can be pretty rough for all of us. How will we do it? I do not have the key in my hand but it must be found. We must address it and, in so doing, I believe that we will find it.
I move on to sportsmanship and fair play about which I and many others in the House today feel passionately. I should like to send out from this House a cri de Coeur to every sportsman and woman in the land that we must arrest the decline in standards of behaviour on the field of play. It is the personal responsibility of every competitor. That was how we were brought up. Certainly, as a schoolboy I could not walk onto a field of play for my county or England without personal responsibility to behave correctly towards the umpire. There is simply no place in sport, whatever the cynics

1435
may say, for sharp practice, cheating, ill-temper, foul language and demonstrations of aggression against soccer and rugger referees. We must stop it. In a word, it is all about integrity. I hate to see soccer referees harassed and humiliated by players. Rugby Union and Rugby League have been clever over their penalties and sanctions which have helped them enormously. Soccer and cricket are studying the matter but still have not found sensible solutions.
I am president of the Cricket Umpires Association. I am thankful that I am not president of the body representing referees. Tens of thousands of volunteers up and down the country who are nutty about the game are prepared to spend most of the summer playing their pan. It is sad to report—I hear it from my friends—that their role is becoming less attractive through the mindless bad manners of a few. The umpires do not seek further powers; they resist them with all their might. They long for captains who will keep their players in order.
When one speaks publicly on this delicate issue it is a difficult matter to get cross. When I speak about it occasionally I take great care because I see the cynics by the million coming out of the woodwork. "Bah! All that is old hat. There's no way of winning. That is why the British are such glorious losers", and all the rest of it. I tell them that what they say is rubbish and I am very happy to sweep them out of court.
All the truly great sportsmen I have met have been quite meticulous in their attitude to sportsmanship and fair play and their respect for the umpire. Take the noble Lord sitting on the Benches opposite I believe that he is noted by some for a little work that he did in Liverpool. There he is, a benign, mellow, friendly, smiling and cheerful fellow, but I remember walking with him to the wicket in Melbourne the day that he made his 100 against Australia with three lions and a crown on his cap. We did not wear helmets, did we? I can promise noble Lords that the flames came out of his ears and nose. He was passionate about cricket and his desire to win for England. He was consumed with concentration and application with an inner determination to do well, and he was a marvellous competitor. One would love to see that invoked in our next team. Yet all the while, do not misunderstand me, his integrity shone through.
If you think that it is a matter of higher education, not at all. I came into the Kent team as an 18 year-old with Godfrey Evans, as rough as they come, the best wicket-keeper in the world, a professional boxer, no less, a man of boyish enthusiasm and fun who loved every minute of every day. But if one of our players put a foot out of line or would not toe the line, he would send him off, he would curse him and he would put him right. He did the job of a captain for all of us. There were a lot of Godfrey Evanses, not just in cricket but also in the soccer world. as is evident when you talk to Stanley Matthews and all the rugby players. There were a lot of them who did the work half-way along and put you in your place.
I think of the American golfer, Arnold Palmer, who, thanks to the fierce discipline imposed by his father, became famous not just for winning but for his
1436
impeccable deportment on and off the course, which lifted and helped to make the Masters in Augusta what it is today. He described Arnold Palmer as "a blue collar worker from the poorest side of town, who picked up the game from the upper reaches and gave it hack to the masses. His way of life became a template for the behaviour of the modern professional golfer". What a tribute! I say to the cynics that there was nothing soft-bellied about him when he was playing.
I also think of dear Gary Sobers. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, cannot he here today. I would like to have told her just how much we all appreciated playing with the West Indies under the three Ws and the great influence that they had. Gary was brought up in a simple bungalow, the sixth of a young family, his father dying at sea when he was 12, his mother, with little money, imposing a loving but strict discipline. He then became the best all round cricketer that the world has seen. Whether or not the good Lord was kind to me, I am not quite sure, but he ordained that I should captain England in 15 Test Matches against him. On every single occasion, he was the truest of sportsmen. Sharp practice or anything underhand simply never entered his head, and he would he very tough if any of his own players stepped out of line, a good humour never being far away. I can assure you that there was nothing soft about him. At my expense, he enjoyed an awful lot of wins!
I come to the end. There are no ifs and buts in this matter. Everyone who is involved in sport must hammer home this point. We must all fight for it with our lives. We have to put sport back into sport. What is more, linked to my first point, once we play as proper sportsmen, we will be better, we will stand out there with more pride and we will win.
With regard to the matter of team games in schools, I will leave that to others. However, I have a conviction that those schools that are able to keep them going in difficult circumstances will find that their youngsters will have a more rounded and better way of life through the experience of sport, where one does so much more losing than winning. That is what the teaching of sport is all about. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, for introducing this Motion and quite rightly speaking in a truly emotional manner about his experience in sport.
I remind the noble Lord that our friendship on a non-political basis goes back rather a long time—some 46 years. It is a curious coincidence that more or less on this day 45 years ago the noble Lord and I shared a partnership at The Parks for Oxford University against Lancashire when we put on 172 runs for the second wicket. Unfortunately, the noble Lord gave his wicket away when he was 94 and I went on to complete my century. But I pass that by.
I was once able to claim that I was the only former first-class cricketer in your Lordships' House. With the arrival of the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, and, of course,

1437
my noble friend Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, I had to come very low down in the batting order. They went on to glorious things; I went on to a less glorious career.
Nevertheless, the Motion is even more important than the noble Lord put forward. There are three points I wish to make. The first is that he referred to team sports. I would refer to participatory sports. That is an important point.
I endorse everything the noble Lord had to say about sportsmanship. There is no doubt that the standard of sporting behaviour in team sports has declined since the noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Sheppard, and I played cricket in our day. That applies also to football and other sports. The problem, of course, is money. That is where the rat has started to get at things. I refer to people who are paid big bonuses, who rely heavily on transfer fees and who obviously find it very difficult to contain themselves when they really have to fight for their money.
The third point, which I will come to later, concerns the political—by which I do not mean party political—and social aspects of sport.
I start with team sports. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, that there must be a mechanism for ensuring that many more people can engage in team sports. I do not believe that sport should simply be a mechanism for people sitting in front of a television set and watching Manchester United or the Derby, or whatever sport it may be, and doing nothing. The whole point is to get people to participate. That is why I used the expression "participatory sport." I believe that anything the Government can do to encourage that would be welcome.
Sadly, local authorities over the years have had to sell playing fields and get rid of facilities. My grandchildren, who go to a comprehensive school in Warwickshire, cannot even get on to a tennis court without paying extra. That cannot be right. I hope that the Government will pay attention to the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, rightly pointed out that sportsmen are role models. There are other role models: there are the Spice Girls, there are stars in the soap operas, and so on. People, like the noble Lord, who have played sport, who are playing sport, and who are seen to be playing sport in a proper way are role models. I do not think that that aspect should be ignored. All those people who are role models, some of whom I am afraid have behaved in a manner of which your Lordships would disapprove, should be made aware that the youth of today are watching them and that they have to behave in a proper manner.
I now come to what I call the political/social element of sport. It has rightly been said that sport is not the history of sport. Sport is history. I cite three examples. In the 1930s, when Australia was going through a very bad depression, the cricketer Bradman was the one person who kept Australia alive in terms of the morale of the country. By making all his runs and being a convincing Australian, he kept the whole country going. It was collapsing in desperate economic times of the 1930s.
1438
Secondly, there is the Irish rugby team, a team representing all parts of Ireland. This means that there is a stand-off half playing for Ireland who actually comes from Northern Ireland. That must be a uniting force from within, due entirely to a sporting environment.
I recall the late Lord Wilson saying, when England were knocked out of the World Cup in Mexico in 1970, that it was entirely due to that event that the Labour Party lost the 1970 general election. That may be right or wrong: the fact that he said it indicates how strong sport is.
We have only to look at Manchester United or Tim Henman to see how national morale is affected by the sporting prowess of the champions. That feeds down, as the noble Lord rightly said, to younger people who get the urge to take up tennis, rugby or whatever. Speaking just for Wales, the fact that the Welsh rugby team beat England at the last moment gave an enormous uplift to the Principality. We cannot neglect that.
Having said all that, I believe that your Lordships will have to recognise, as the noble Lord said, that sport is not just a question of people going out and playing cricket or kicking a football around. It is not just a question of,
"the flannelled fools at the wicket or the muddied oafs at the goals".
It is part of the social fabric of the nation. That is the message I hope your Lordships will be able to convey.
The second message which I hope your Lordships will convey is that facilities at the lower level—for my grandchildren attending their comprehensive school in Warwickshire—should be available just as those facilities were available to the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, to my noble friend Lord Sheppard, and to myself when we were playing cricket together. That is a vital point. I hope that the Government will be prepared to address it.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Cowdrey for the wonderfully inspiring speech with which he introduced the debate today. I have spent a lifetime in sport, both as an Olympian competitor and administrator, and now I am fortunate enough to have a daughter-in-law who is an Olympian herself and holds an Olympic silver medal. There are many facets of sport in this country that I would like to have spoken about today. However, I have picked on perhaps a rather sombre one but one which I take very seriously. I refer to the availability and use of performance enhancing drugs in sport and recreation. I believe that they and their use are a serious cancer in the world of sport.
Like, I suspect, many noble Lords, for most of the time my only contact with that evil is through the pages of the press. But one day, in my capacity as President of the British Bobsleigh Association, I was the first person to be officially informed that our leading competitor for the coming Olympic Games had tested positively for performance enhancing drugs. After that event I asked some questions. What worried me most was the realisation of how widespread was the use of these drugs, how easily they are obtained and how little

1439
most users know about their effects when they set off down the road of using drugs. These drugs are not only used at international level but are widely available in gymnasiums and clubs and, dare I say it, I suspect at times in schools right across the kingdom.
Why is that the case? The noble Lords, Lord Cowdrey and Lord Williams, have both mentioned sportsmanship. There is no doubt that the ethic that we grew up with, of true sportsmanship, so brilliantly outlined by my noble friend, is not the same today. But that is not the only reason. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also referred to money. The financial incentives in sport today are enormous. A top athlete, one of our best, can earn £3 million a year. Top motor-racing drivers and others can earn millions more. But it is not only those who wish to gain international honours for the first time or those with a chance to become world Olympic champions who might be tempted. There are also those, like my colleague in the bobsleigh world, who have reached the top: the tummy is growing a little, they are fading, they have this passionate desire, driven by money and ego, to compete for one more season or one more championship. They are tempted, and often, but not often enough, they are caught.
How do they start? Most teams now have coaches of one kind or another. The coaches., many of them amateurs, do a fantastic job. They range from those who look after little children to those who run our national teams—the Keegans of this world. But they are not all perfect. Sometimes a coach feels that with just a little more—perhaps it is his wife or a child—he or she will make the national team, win the championship and that a wee nibble will get them there.
The downside of taking these drugs is not so well known. However, it is not hard to find out. If one looks at arid listens to the East Germans, for example, who were fed on performance enhancing drugs for many years, they are living examples of the destruction that the drugs have done to their bodies in later life. Some of them are prepared to talk openly about it. I understand that one of the most vulnerable parts of the body is the liver. The drugs cause nasty things to grow on it.
What is being done to prevent doping in sport? Not enough, I suggest. However, having said that, the UK Sports Council has a professional full-time team of testers, although there are those who would knock them and say that they are not adequately equipped. The British Olympic Association, probably alone of all national Olympic organisations, has, after intense pressure from athletes, passed a by-law stating that any athlete testing positively for an illegal drug will never compete in a British Olympic team.
This business of drugs in sport is international. I am informed that the UK is doing more than most countries to combat it. The IOC, since the retirement of the late Lord Killanin, has been guilty of many misdemeanours and its attitude towards drugs until recently has been at best laissez-faire. But the IOC, under a good deal of pressure, called a meeting in Lausanne in February and set up a worldwide doping agency. Furthermore, it
1440
pump-primed it with 25 million dollars. This time it is the national governments who are dragging their feet. Perhaps I may ask the Minister to consider giving that a little polish with his toe.
In summary, I would ask the Government to do a number of things. First, I believe that performance-enhancing drugs in sport are a greater evil than tobacco smoking. They should be treated as such and steps should be taken to educate people of the dangers in the way that the Government do with nicotine. I should like to think—I know it is optimistic—that one day a British government will feel that it can outlaw trafficking and trading in these drugs.
I should like to see some increase in tae money available for research into methods of detection for these drugs. Those responsible for policing drugs in sport have hitherto always been technically one step behind the expert practitioners who are determined to cover their traces. It is well known in international sport that if many performance-enhancing drugs are well and carefully used with albeit expensive secondary drugs, the secondary drug can be used successfully to cover the primary drug.
Last but by no means least, I ask the British Government to support the International Olympic Committee's new initiative. Get the governments of the sporting world and the sporting countries to unite strongly and wholeheartedly behind a campaign to drive these drugs out of sport and the sporting world that we love.
3.40 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, this House likes to take pride in the balance that it brings to its debates. The debate opened with what I describe as a Cowdrey century: a splendid knock by the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey. We then had the noble Lord, Lord Williams, telling of his century at county cricket; and the noble Lord Glentoran explained that he was a former Olympian. I bring balance. I have never in my life been selected for a first team of any sport except darts. So I probably represent the vast majority of people in this country who play, watch and love sport. I come from a generation which looked at that golden age of Cowdrey and Sheppard. I come from Blackpool so had the benefit of Matthews and Mortensen as well. Because I had such pleasure from playing and watching sport I am keen that my children inherit a similar legacy in terms of the quality of sport they can watch and play.
Our sporting world today is one of contradictions. In many ways it is wealthier than ever before. Resources from television, radio, sponsorship, higher leisure spending and better commercial management have poured money into most of our major sports and provided better coaching, better facilities and wider opportunities. Yet as we have heard, and will hear again, school sport is under threat. Availability of playing fields and other recreational spaces continues to shrink, and sports opportunities, in particular in inner cities and areas of social deprivation, continue to be poor.
The Government cannot have a laissez-faire attitude to sports development. They have to protect the wider national interest for the very reason that the noble Lord,

1441
Lord Williams, hinted at. Large commercial interests are at work. Sport has become an adjunct of entertainment, and often it is the bottom line and shareholder value which takes precedence over national interest and social values.
There is a genuine dilemma here. If the noble Lord, Lord MacLaurin, were present he would explain it on behalf of cricket. Individual sports need to raise the commercial money that helps them to fund their operations. They have a right, as does the individual sportsman and woman, to try to maximise earnings in what is often a very short life. My brother is a few years older than me. He was a plumber. He had as his labourer a man called Johnny McIntyre. Johnny McIntyre once scored seven goals for Blackburn Rovers in a football league match. I think that is still a record. And Johnny McIntyre ended up carrying a 21 year-old plumber's tool bag.
We must remember that when considering the riches of sportsmen. Professional sportsmen and women have a short lifespan of earnings and do and should have the opportunity to maximise their earnings in any way they can. But, as has been pointed out, sport and sporting events are a shared national heritage. In replying to the debate today, I hope that the Minister will give a clearer explanation of the Government's attitude about the televising of sporting events. The pressure on exclusivity for sporting events will grow harder and make the decisions more difficult. There will be an increased need for clear guidelines otherwise, for that broader national audience, we shall lose the ability to watch those big events.
I believe that some sports are extremely short-sighted on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, referred to golf. Professional golf is not short of a bob or two. I cannot see why golf should receive a better deal from the few hundreds of thousands of people watching the Ryder Cup on satellite television than the shared national experience that terrestrial television would provide.
In some ways, I realise that those judgments will have to be left to the individual sports. But the Government have to be in there somewhere as a referee due to the massive commercial pressures now at work because of sport's tremendous underpinning of other investments in cable and satellite television.
Government have to nudge the sporting bodies. I continue to be appalled at the overall social responsibility of our major soccer clubs. They are often located in areas of deprivation and the majority of their supporters are very deprived. Yet the people who run those clubs seem to have little or no social awareness of that wider responsibility. I tend to follow the belief of the great Len Shackleton: he left blank the page in his autobiography about the intelligence of soccer directors.
I associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, said about sporting behaviour. But we do not want just pious words. I have a recording—it shows what an "anorak" I am—of the 1953 Blackpool Cup Final. I did not see any shirt tugging in that cup final. You see it every week these days. Shirt tugging is
1442
a blatant foul; and why it is not outlawed I do not know. In the game of the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, we are assured that the Australians have turned sledging into an art form. Reference has been made to snooker. If, when Steve Davis bent down to play a shot, his opponent began to talk about his parentage or where his wife was at that precise moment, I am sure the snooker referee would tell the opponent to stop. Why does not the umpire intervene to stop sledging?
The noble Lord is right about the intimidation of referees. I was watching a game at my local park where I saw exactly the same intimidation of the referee that one can see most Saturdays or Sundays on one's television screens. But there is a danger where professionalism rots a game. Why should a young fellow go on a Saturday or Sunday morning to referee an amateur football game and get himself physically threatened by someone apeing a professional footballer when he could be safely at home in bed or elsewhere? That is where professionalism begins to rot the game. That is why there is a need to underpin the call for a return to the earlier attitudes to sport. Such recollections are not merely imaginings of a golden age.
Finally, perhaps I may put the Minister on notice with regard to the question of playing fields. It is 17 years since I first raised in another place the question of the loss of our playing fields. That has continued under successive administrations. There is still widespread disquiet about the loss of such facilities, not least on the part of the National Playing Fields Association. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some real assurances about that in his reply.
Perhaps I may say briefly and in closing that a Labour Government, in particular, will be judged on how they get sports facilities to the poorest parts of our communities. As well as being a little star struck about support for sport—I know that there are many sports fans on the Government Benches—it is on the question of getting sport to all that they will be judged.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Feldman: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Cowdrey on initiating this debate and on introducing it with such authority, humour and experience. I hope that he will not blush when I say that he has been one of my heroes for very many years. He has had a remarkable record: playing 117 times for England; captaining the team 23 times; carrying out 11 overseas tours; and scoring 22 Test centuries in a career total of 107. That is really outstanding.
Why can we not produce as many sporting heroes these days as we did when I was a lad? I am sure that there are many reasons, and I hope to deal with some of them. In the arts, I have often proposed that we have to "catch them young" so that our young people from schooldays onwards can become interested in music, theatre, literature and all those pursuits which are so important to a civilised life in a civilised country. I think that sport is exactly the same. I was introduced to sport as a schoolboy and, although I never had any pretension about being more than average, I was always an enthusiast. I played cricket, football and tennis, getting

1443
up at the crack of dawn to book a public tennis court. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that even in those days we had to pay to hire a public court.
I later played squash and golf and I have remained a regular spectator and an enthusiastic fan over the years. To this day, I often risk displeasure at home when I want to monopolise the television set to watch sport. I am proud to say that I still remain as sports-crazy today as ever.
I grew up at a time when there were fewer external diversions and when families were much closer. I remember that our garden was often full at weekends, with my father, uncles and cousins all playing football and cricket, which again helped to develop my enthusiasm for sport. I often ask: how can we recapture the spirit of those days? In my view, it is a question of money, leadership, coaching and, yes, catching them young.
The Government have an important role to play. As we have found in the arts, they use a lot of warm words and a lot of cold clichés but never give enough money. I understand that sport will lose in the region of £100 million a year in each of three years as a result of the Government's raid on lottery funding previously earmarked for sport. That short-term fix will lead to long-term harm for the future of sport.
As we know. good sport nationally creates national pride and the confidence that comes from success. Perhaps I may give a small family example. I have been a season ticket holder at Arsenal football club for very many years and I have tried on occasions to take one or other of my three granddaughters to watch the team play at home. They were never terribly interested, but when Arsenal won the double, they insisted that I took them to some of this season's matches. This once again demonstrates that success in sport leads to growing interest, pride and confidence.
We need money for better coaches, preferably from the United Kingdom, but, if they are not available, then from Europe or elsewhere. Great sportsmen today all earn large sums of money and great coaches also need substantial financial incentives. We need to find that money from somewhere. Today's growing interest in football is emphasised by the addition of foreign players and foreign coaches. In the Premiership alone, two of the top three teams have foreign coaches—one a Frenchman, the other an Italian. With better coaches, better facilities, meaningful encouragement from government—plus the return of the money taken from lottery funding—we could move forward much faster.
We have to catch them young, as I continue to repeat. That means we have to fire their enthusiasm while at school. The protection of school playing fields will play an important part. In the Government's sports manifesto, they pledged that they would,
"tackle the decline in school sport by ending the sale of playing fields",
That has not happened. In fact, it seems that their revised policy, announced only in the past two days, is just a rehash of previous policy. The National Playing
1444
Fields Association has commented that the new criteria fall far short of the strong action needed to stop the land being sold off or used for building.
The fiasco over playing fields highlights once again the alarming decline in PE and sports activities in our schools, which has become a hallmark of this Government's so-called "sports policy". Protecting existing school playing fields and making better use of them would give a great boost to team sports in schools, and so please my noble friend Lord Cowdrey.
The Government seem to be allowing children to opt out of team sports, which illustrates their ignorance of the many benefits such activities bring. Sport improves health, breaks down barriers, and helps to instil the principle of integrity and fair play. It seems that the Government's view of sport is that it is not important but is a mere "optional extra." They ignore the direct link between sport and good health in later years.
In too many schools, competition—both in education and in sport—seems to be frowned upon. That is not the way to create champions. We know that we have to be good losers. That is right. But we also need to be given the opportunity to learn how to be good winners. It is therefore vital that the Government return the lottery money previously allocated to sport. Then, with more facilities and better leadership, we can boost our national identity and prestige, strengthen communities and contribute to the economy.
We must recognise the real significance of sport and take it more seriously. It has a wide-ranging impact commercially, from big business to the media and entertainment. It has an impact on tourism, the environment, our heritage and our culture.
In conclusion, whether it is for fun, for health or for general interest, everyone should have the opportunity and encouragement to participate in sport. They should have the chance to develop their skills in and their enthusiasm for, all manner of games. When that happens, our country will reap the reward of this major and important part of our lives.
3.58 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, it is indeed opportune that the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, with his distinguished sporting background, particularly in cricket, should have introduced today's debate soon after England's departure from the "Super Six" in the Cricket World Cup. Perhaps the English cricket team could have learnt a few lessons from the South African cricket team who, when at 60 for five, and looking defeat fairly and squarely in the face, came back resoundingly to defeat Pakistan. With so much talent in the English cricket team, winning is certainly not just about performance, but also about mindset, as I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, will agree. I have to admit that I sometimes fail the Tebbit test, having spent most of my life in South Africa where sport is almost like a religion and there is a far more clement weather pattern.
I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, on his overview of all the wonderful sporting events that are hosted in Britain. There is a concern about more

1445
encouragement for some team games and the need to put more fun and, in his words, passion back into sport as well as to address improved sportsmanship and fair play.
However, I must applaud the efforts of the Sports Minister, Tony Banks, who I believe, with a few reservations to which I shall return, is clearly committed to improving sport in the United Kingdom.
There is no doubt that the National Lottery has also played a major financial role in improving not only sporting facilities but also enhancing the chances for the emergence of more British sports role models.
I wish to focus my remarks on the importance of, and the need to promote, more involvement in sport at school level. I am pleased that the Government have taken decisive action to stem the sale of school playing fields and to encourage schools to make their playing fields available for community as well as school use during out-of-school hours. However, I note from a recent Written Question in the other place that since 25th February Sport England is considering more than 45 planning applications in respect of commercially developing school playing fields in England alone. Can the Minister confirm whether Sport England has a right of veto in these applications before they are referred to the Secretary of State?
While the Secretary of State for Sport, Mr Banks, has regularly given his support and assurance that sport in schools is essential for a broad and balanced education, I am surprised by the Government's recent announcement that they propose downgrading team sport at key stage 4, effectively for children over the age of 14. What is the basis of the Government's assessment that at key stage 4, and I quote from the Minister:
"team sports lack popularity among many children, particularly young women"?
Of course, I agree with the proposal to offer the broadest choice of sport to youngsters and with the proposal to try to encourage children to do at least two hours of sport every week. I understand that on average children have one-and-a-half hours of sport every week. However, I cannot help but feel that we are getting mixed messages from the Government. The Minister, Tony Banks, claimed that the Government are committed to team sports, but the proposed changes to the national curriculum appear effectively to decrease the opportunities for most children over the age 14 to participate in team games.
There appear to be plenty of high-profile national initiatives to boost interest in sport, particularly from Sport England, but not enough initiatives at school level to encourage all children to play more sport, particularly at a competitive level. I entirely agree with Professor David Kirk, Professor of Youth Sport at Loughborough University, who was recently quoted as saying,
"Nothing short of a culture change is needed. We should be saying to the kids, play at your own level, enjoy what you're doing, and encourage them to move on to the next level if they want to".
1446
His intention in his research into new initiatives to maintain interest in sports by teenagers, particularly girls, is that if schools really want to prepare children for an active adulthood, they should make traditional sports more child friendly.
Even though Professor Kirk backs the shift away from the focus on traditional team games in the national curriculum, my support for team and competitive sport stems from my belief that, if we can achieve international success in any sport, team or individual—such as the achievements of Tim Henman and other sporting role models—that would be an invaluable stimulus to much more national participation in those sports of high achievement.
Many schools no longer offer much, if any, extra-curricular sport apart from team practices. A recent survey in March by the National Association of Head Teachers found that school sport had decreased significantly both during and outside school hours over the past two years. Having said that, I was most encouraged by the initiative of Sport England, which has established new sport action zones which can benefit from additional facilities, particularly in the less privileged areas of Britain, and the introduction of 600 schools co-ordinators who will provide secondary schools with the personnel to co-ordinate after-school activities and bolster links with local sports clubs.
In conclusion, while I wholeheartedly support Sport England's plans to create a nation of champions by spending £2 billion over the next 10 years, there needs to be a shift in culture and mindset at the school level. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, we cannot wait for cyclical change; we need to be more reactionary in achieving national sporting success. Let us hope that England pull's the cat out of the bag and wins the Rugby World Cup later this year.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in a debate which my noble friend Lord Cowdrey opened with such flair. Indeed, to bat between him and my noble friend Lord Sheppard is beyond my previous cricketing opportunities.
I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord St. John, and my noble friend Lord Feldman in talking about schools. However, I would temper the noble Lord's enthusiasm for cricket and rugby with the fact that Scotland is the local champion in the United Kingdom and is likely to deal with South Africa in October.
I wish to speak about youth because that is where in the coming years we shall find the opportunities for improvement that my noble friend Lord Cowdrey so rightly wants. I want to comment on matters for which the Government have some responsibility rather than the other important issues of sporting enthusiasm and improving standards of play, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cowdrey.
By coincidence, in December 1997, my noble friend Lord Cowdrey and I made maiden speeches in a debate on sport in schools. I am disappointed that the Government listened to so little of what was said in the debate and have taken little action. There are many

1447
issues of importance. For instance, we heavily criticised the Government's decision to reduce the amount of money available to support through the National Lottery because they wished to put the money to other good causes. Of course, the other good causes were deserving of money, but that money should have come from the taxpayers and not from the lottery. We have made that clear time and time again in this House.
Furthermore, we should like a declared definition from the Government as regards Sports UK—the English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh sports councils—particularly now that we have assemblies and parliaments, about who exactly is responsible for what. Certainly in the world of sport there is a great deal of concern as to where to go for the proper assistance.
In regard to Sport England, it is well known that a high percentage of its income—some 37 per cent—is spent on administration. That is something at which we must look very carefully indeed. I have a general criticism to make of the time that the Government took to appoint a new chairman for Sport England. It took months and months, but happily, at the end of the day, they came to the right decision in appointing Trevor Brooking.
As the noble Lord, Lord St. John said, the delay is symptomatic of the sporting world in this country. Decisions in the sporting world take far too long. There is a myriad of problems in planning, in local government, in the Sports Council and in the Government. Decisions about building a tennis court or rebuilding Wembley stadium take so very long to come to a conclusion.
In the debate we have rightly been concentrating on many aspects of sport, but playing fields are important. Of course, there will never be enough playing fields. Planners tend to forget that it rains in this country far more than it ought to and that one cannot play rugby and football on the same ground day in and day out throughout the winter. We need a substantial increase in the number of playing fields and not a reduction.
When I was shadow minister for sport from 1974 to 1979, I complained to the Department of Education about the sale of sports grounds, but nothing happened. I went again, as Minister for Sport between 1979 and 1981, to the Minister for Education and precious little happened.
We simply have not got to grips with the issue of selling playing fields. The National Playing Fields Association has done its best, as has the CCPR. I hope Ministers who are interested in sport will carefully read the CCPR brief that was sent to many noble Lords, which suggested a whole host of improvements that the Government may take on in the near future.
The Government produced new guidelines in October 1998 and again this week on selling school playing fields, but there are still many applications to sell before the Government. As far as I know, none has been refused. On we go, selling playing fields, and nothing is done to stop it. One of the guidelines issued by the Government this week is that objections by local residents must be taken into account. Frankly, they are not.. The poor local residents and the mothers and fathers
1448
of the children who want the playing fields are driven aside and the local authorities get their way, sell the playing fields for development and a great deal of money goes into the kitties.
Donald Trelford, in the Daily Telegraph, has highlighted the issue of the playing field at Sherborne. The large field is to be sold and the public are told that the children will have to go a mile and a half down the road to another playing field. That is no way to treat children. They should be able to play nearer home.
We understand, under a system announced this week, that the final arbitration will be to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. That does not fill me with great enthusiasm. The Government simply must get a grip on the sale of playing fields. I also hope that the Government will come down on 1:he side of mandatory derating of playing fields, especially as derating is falling into disrepute and local councils are taking every opportunity to stop discretionary rebates and making the sports bodies pay the rates in full.
As this is a short debate, one can only generalise, but I believe that some sport in schools is good, a lot of it is mediocre and a whole host of it is thoroughly bad. Part of the trouble is that children are in school for too short a period in the day and for too few days in the year. I do not see how you can add additional strain onto the curriculum, if children go to school at 9.15, leave at 3.30 and spend about an hour at lunch time eating chips. That is no way to get children interested in sport. The curriculum is too crowded and sport is being sidelined.
Sport is an essential part of education. As the saying goes: fit in body; fit in mind. Team games are so important. They bring discipline, respect for others, as the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, has said, for the umpires and for referees, and they develop good character and leadership. That is much lacking in the United Kingdom today. As the noble Lord rightly said, sport must always be fun and enjoyable.
We should encourage outward bound activities like the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, which provide a challenge to children. They must not be foolhardy, but boys and girls should be able to achieve objectives that they previously thought impossible unless they are pushed to the limit. Schools must give them that opportunity. They should take children into the countryside for recreation and to understand its beauty, away from television and computer games.
I am very disappointed at the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority saying that there should be no compulsory games for 14 to 16-year olds. The authority may be brilliant academically, but it does not appear to know much about sport. Naturally, if a diffident child is given a soft option, he will take it. Children should not be given that opportunity. They may be turning away something that later in life they will wish they had become involved with.
It is most important that we improve the link between schools and clubs, when school teachers themselves are not prepared to do the work. We must encourage

1449
inter-school matches, which are good for morale and for the team spirit of the school. A school doing well at games raises the whole level of education.
I am glad that the Conservative Party is consulting within sport, looking at the future plan and bringing forward some sound ideas for the future. I believe that the present Government have sat on the fence for too long and have taken far too long to come to any decisions, whether in the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or the Home Office. They should co-ordinate themselves in the so-called sports cabinet because they are not doing enough to raise the standards of our children who will be the backbone of our sporting achievements in the next century.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge, on introducing this debate and on the manner and passion with which he did so.
He has opened up a wide field. The main point that I want to make is different from those made so far. If we want to improve the quality of sport, we need an unbroken chain of sporting opportunities, if natural talent is to be given its chance to develop. In that unbroken chain I want to speak of the greater part that established clubs could play and the incentives that they could be offered to do so. I do not speak of professional clubs, or first-class clubs, but of local clubs that provide good sport.
However, first, I want to salute the personal contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge, has made to our game of cricket, as a great and selfless player, himself a symbol of the integrity about which he spoke. If you have seen the noble Lord run, you would not suppose that he was the greatest of runners between wickets. Having batted with him, I must tell you that he was the best runner between wickets that I remember. I made up my mind that I would trust him totally, and if he called me for a run I would go. That was true of no other player with whom I batted. Since the end of his playing days he has given himself wholeheartedly to strengthen all that is best in the game, not only in the UK, but all over the world.
Improving sport in the United Kingdom is not simply about the high profile matters of winning and losing at an international level, welcome and healthy as some winning would be. Improving the quality of sport at international level involves spreading the opportunities for young people more widely. However, simply spreading opportunities more widely is not enough if we want the quality to grow. It is not enough simply to give youngsters a taste of all sorts of sports. We need them to be able to move on to something more demanding and more competitive if they are to improve.
That is what I mean when I talk about an unbroken chain. Not long ago I went to Wigan to give awards to the winners of a keenly contested "quick cricket" competition between primary schools. There was a
1450
tremendous amount of enthusiasm from the boys and girls. But where do they go from there? Participating in something like that needs to be followed up with the possibility of more demanding cricket, perhaps in secondary school; then in village or park cricket; then, crucially, to good club standard—no doubt what goes for cricket will have its parallels in many other sports—and then to the first-class game.
For too long we have assumed that schools would offer all the opportunities that could be expected. But the reality surely is that they have not been providing them for a long time, and in some areas they have never been able to offer decent facilities. I would have said the same 10 years ago; I would have said the same when I worked in the East End of London 40 years ago.
For example, in Liverpool I was asked to offer an afternoon's coaching at our nearest community and comprehensive school—our daughter's school. Although it was a very hot June day, we could only be in the gymnasium. The school had got rid of its groundsman in the interests of economy in the same way, as some noble Lords mentioned, as some schools throughout the country have sold playing fields.
Improving sporting skills does not mean simply the chance to have a brief taste of many sports, but to make real progress in a chosen sport. So the main point I want to make is the crucial role that clubs play—or fail to play—in improving sport. We shall not see a sudden leap from the "quick cricket" that I saw in Wigan and which we sometimes see as a showpiece in the intervals of a big match, to demanding competitive cricket that will develop major skills. If there is no good club cricket in the area from which we come, a key link in the chain that would have given us a real opportunity is missing.
In 1989 I saw a vivid example of the point I am trying to make. I went to South Africa. together with my Roman Catholic friend and colleague, Archbishop Derek Worlock. The state of emergency was still in force. We spent some good time in 10 black townships. I wrote to Ali Bacher before we went. I asked if he would like to take me to see some of the coaching programmes he was running in the townships. He took me out to Tembisa near Johannesburg.
I was impressed with what was being done and congratulated him. I said, "You are trying to do something that we have failed to achieve in England, where we have been very unsuccessful in producing good cricketers from most of our inner cities. I am sure it will take you a good many years of persevering before you produce top-class cricketers". "I don't agree", he said, "I am confident we shall produce some black Test cricketers within two or three years". That was in 1989. It is taking longer than he thought.
To his great credit, Ali Bacher stayed with his vision. He remains determined to press on and achieve that difficult goal. We could do with some of his vision and determination. One of the key problems they face in South Africa is the same as the one of which I speak here, especially when it comes to inner cities; that is, there is no unbroken chain. Because apartheid removed the townships to inconvenient distances from the areas where strong sporting clubs were to be found, it was and

1451
is difficult for a promising young black player, after he has had all the youth opportunities, to move on into good club cricket.
There are parts of urban Britain where, as in the townships of South Africa, it would mean a considerable journey to a quite different neighbourhood to find a strong club. There is a challenge to those clubs. Or will they put up their guard at such a suggestion, afraid of the so-called rough element upsetting their well-ordered club? A trust approached me not so long ago to see whether I could point it to where they could make a grant that would help give good sporting opportunities for youngsters. It took me 18 months before I heard of a scheme that I could put to them. I am glad to say that they are currently considering helping to support a plan put forward by a cricket club keen to open itself up to inner-city boys.
What would that mean? It would mean running junior teams at different ages. It would mean offering persevering coaching and encouragement. That demands a great deal from older players, both as volunteers and in giving money to provide the costly equipment cricket requires, and perhaps to employ a coach. Is it really unrealistic to hope that those who have had rich experiences from sport might give themselves to opening up some sporting chances to youngsters? We should salute here the many who already give costly time in this way. Many of those will be teachers and they will realise that it is in the clubs that the easiest and firmest connecting links will go on; that if a youngster plays in the under-11s for a club, all the connections are there for him to go on growing, if the club will allow it. Those people will tell us that it is hugely rewarding when they do.
When it comes to public money, I hope that the lottery and other sources of public money and trusts will look seriously at projects put forward by clubs. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, may have something quite important to say in this debate about charity law and sporting clubs. Of course, the clubs would have to prove their commitment to a continuing programme. I have been disappointed in clubs that could have opened many doors and have not. Can we put a fresh challenge to them, perhaps with the bait that there would be new resources for them?
4.25 p.m.
Lord Chadlington: My Lords, I join noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Cowdrey, first, for initiating this debate and, secondly, for his insightful and, if I may say so, motivational speech in introducing it. I wish to concentrate my attention on one specific but important element; namely, the role of team sports in schools. The weight of my argument is that team sports in schools may be important today, as they were among older generations, but that in the technologically-led world of the 21st century, the qualities they promote among the young will be even more important tomorrow.
Many noble Lords will know of the advice of the management guru, Peter Drucker, who argued that we
1452
should not try to predict the future, but rather understand,
"the implications for the future of current events".
I believe that those implications may involve substituting social and human interdependence with technological interdependence and this, in turn, may lead to the loss of many of the social and human values which team sport encourages, cultivates and nurtures. The technology-led revolution in which we are all observers, and in which the young are active participants, impacts on all our lives in three key areas: at work, in the home, and at play. Let me deal with each of those in turn.
Most of those in executive roles in Britain use a computer at work. By the end of last year nearly one out of three homes in Britain boasted PC ownership. Internet access has risen in the UK by 3 million people in the past five months to over 10 rnillion—around 20 per cent of our population. The growth and acceptability of working at home has been made possible by these technologies; 1 million people in the UK last year, and over 4 million predicted by the end of next year. The European Union predicts 10 million teleworkers by the end of next year.
Mobile phones, modern digital switchboards, PCs, e-commerce and e-mail have all changed the way business thinks. As Milton Friedman said,
"To a far greater extent than at any time in the world's history, it is possible for a company to locate anywhere, use resources from anywhere, to produce a product that can be sold anywhere."
But screen-led working removes from our lives some of the most valuable social interaction which makes us conscious of, and sensitive to, the needs of others. We can see in the not-too-distant future a world when people do not need daily travel to work; do not need so many face-to-face meetings; do not have a sense of loyalty to colleagues, to company or to workplace. The individual becomes the sole driver, the only source of pride in achievement, and the only arbiter of the business decision. His or her personal interest overrides the notion of team, the group or even the company interest.
If this home-led distance working was supported by an increasingly stable home environment for family and children, it could be argued that home working and the end of long commuter days may be to the benefit of society. But the opposite is precisely the case. Since 1981 decrees absolute have doubled and the chances of a marriage lasting for a lifetime are now projected by some pundits as one in two—that is, a 50 per cent. chance of ending up in the divorce courts. Families are smaller. We do not eat together or talk together as a family. We do not even watch television together. Multiple televisions in homes is one reason; the PC is the other. Children prefer to use their own computer rather than watch television with their parents and siblings. If the amount of social interaction in the home, is to diminish further, so, too, will the ordinary day-by-day tasks which bring us into contact with other people in our local community.
E-commerce is predicted to represent 5 per cent of world trade in five years. In the US already one in 10 adults make on-line purchases. Twenty-five per cent

1453
of all private share purchases in the US in the first 90 days of 1999 were made on-line. A trip to the shops, to the local bank branch or even a visit to the doctor may soon be a rare event for a significant percentage of the British population.
Within a decade or less we could expect a world in which the social fabric to which we have become so accustomed will be replaced by a screen-led world. But this will be the world of the young adult of tomorrow. It will result in different values and in different skills, not necessarily worse, but different. The trillion dollar e-commerce industry will see to that. What is certain, however, is that these changes potentially detract from our day-by-day opportunities to teach our children and grandchildren the benefits of interdependence, one to another, which a full social life brings.
In my home, with four children under 15 years of age, I see every day, on the one hand, the impact of technology on the lives of the young and, on the other hand, the benefits that team sport brings. We cannot stop the former but we can encourage and invest in the latter. I see how team sports teach my children to depend on each other, how they create a sense of loyalty and team spirit. They teach them how to deal with the winning and, equally—indeed, maybe more—importantly, how to deal with the losing; how to recognise that others are better, more gifted and more skilled; how to be disciplined in training and practice; how hard work individually and as a team brings better performance; how to anticipate others' needs and thoughts; and how not to give up when a run of bad luck and losing seems to go on and on.
I suggest that if we take Peter Drucker's advice and try to see the implications for the future of current events, it is not difficult to predict that, for the young, social relationships, social intercourse, as we know it, and the skills associated with regular people interaction will become less and less important in everyday life. If we are not to lose those values, the key values of respect, especially respect for authority, and of sensitivity to the needs of others, then we must put team sports high on the education agenda for the young of our country—not just to keep them fit, or away from increasing drug use—but to ensure that the qualities and values which make us dependable, social human beings are nurtured from generation to generation.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, perhaps I may join everyone in thanking my noble friend Lord Cowdrey for bringing this debate to the House. I should also like to congratulate him on his speech. I was fascinated by how many Members of this House wanted to be great cricketers. Today I find myself at number 10 on the speakers' list, which is one above my usual position when playing this part. However, as so many speakers have mentioned this, especially my noble friend Lord Feldman who talked in great detail about the distinction of my noble friend Lord Cowdrey on the field, I am bound to say that I was present at the
1454
end of his career. He had decided then that his cricketing days were finished and was "caught Willie Rushton, bowled Sir Timothy Rice" for a duck.
Like my noble friend Lord Feldman, when I was a child I did not bother with the beginning of my Latin primer; indeed, I turned to the back and on that white page wrote out the world's team to play the moon. How often one wrote down the words Hutton, Cowdrey, May, Compton, Laker and Truman, allowing perhaps Miller and Bradman also to be allowed in the team and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, who spoke a short while ago.
I suggest to my noble friend Lord Cowdrey that the problem now is that if one were to turn to one's Latin primer—and Latin and Greek are not being taught as much these days—and write out a list of a world team, this country would be very pressed to have a member of that team. Apart, perhaps, from Gower, Botham and possibly Gooch, it is 10 years since we have produced a cricketer of world class. I take this seriously; I actually think that it is important to win. I hate the fact that we are not in the "Super Six". I hate the fact that Zimbabwe, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia, whose combined populations are less than that of England, are all in the "Super Six". I would like to see that change. When the Minister replies, although it is very important for him to talk about schools—and I shall come to that later—I hope that he will also talk about our role in the world.
Perhaps I may say something to my noble friend Lord Cowdrey and other speakers who have mentioned good manners in sport. My noble friend kindly mentioned that I have the privilege of being president of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association. There was an incident in the semi-final, which my noble friend may have noticed, when Stephen Hendry was playing against Ronnie O'Sullivan. He was going for 147. My noble friend will remember the game well. Stephen Hendry had already won the game, but he bent down and touched the pink ball with the corner of his cuff. He stood up and said to the referee, "I touched the ball". However, not one person in the audience had noticed and the television cameras had not picked it up. People may well say, "Well, Jeffrey, it wasn't important because he had already won the game". But they would be wrong: if he had cleared the table he would have made £147,000. Why cannot those standards be found in every other sport? Why do we—dare I say it in this House—take that for granted?
I shall give your Lordships another tiny example of what I mean, and I do not apologise for doing so. I suggest that noble Lords watch the next snooker game and study the former world champion John Higgins. Whenever a ball is replaced—and I shall not spend a long time explaining "replaced"—the other person is allowed to say whether it is in the right place. John Higgins always assumes that the person he is playing will put it back where it was. He does not ever question it. How different that is from those footballers who take another 10 yards on the field. How different that is from those footballers playing in the Sweden match last week who had to receive a yellow card because they would not stand on the correct line. Indeed,

1455
how different from the footballer who brought someone down in something which was frankly nothing less than what is now called a "professional foul". I hate that.
I have heard my noble friend Lord Monro comment again and again when we attend rugby matches together about players who throw a rugby ball into the crowd or off Ito the side in order to give themselves a few more seconds to get back. I do not apologise for saying that when I played the game, however badly, that would have been called cheating. Perhaps I may suggest that we are not helped sometimes by our crowds who seem to think that they referee more brilliantly from the back rows of the stand than the referees on the pitch. Indeed, many speakers have said—and how true it is—that referees are getting fed up with it. They can have a better life not turning out on a Saturday afternoon and being maligned by everyone in the crowd. How different that is from American football, where one can take one's family and where one does not expect to hear bad language from the crowd nor witness bad manners on the field. It puzzles me why the standards in American football are so much higher than those which we have grown to take for granted in our own country.
Like my noble friend Lord Cowdrey, with whom I have discussed this subject many times, I accept that the future lies in schools. I am sure the Minister would agree that the future in this regard also lies with teachers, as the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, mentioned. How does one explain the fact that for 10 years in a row the team at Ampleforth beat that of every other school at rugby football? It has also produced the captain of the England team. How does one explain the fact that the cricket team at King's School, Canterbury, won every single cricket match in which it played for 10 years in a row? Those school teams did not comprise 15 and 11 superior people year after year; they had damn good teachers who, I dare say, gave extra hours of their time day in and day out and, I suspect, without extra pay. The other day I was appalled to read in a national newspaper that a headmistress had cancelled an egg and spoon race. The reason she gave was that she did not believe in competition. However, life is competitive and it is not a bad way to learn the manners of that competition on a sports field.
I turn to another matter on which I hope the Minister will be able to help us; namely, that we would like to bring the World Games to London in 2003. I hope that the Government will be represented in Seville in August in order to help us achieve that. That is the stepping stone to bringing the Olympic Games to this country in 2012.
I end as I began by expressing a passion and love for sport. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, for bringing this debate before us. I have no shame in saying that I want my country to do well. An awfully long time ago the Greeks worked out that throwing the javelin, hurling the discus and running in a marathon were every bit as important as reading Homer. Whereas I admire those who can be described as good losers, I look forward to the day when we as a nation—as was the case when I was a child—take it for granted that we are good winners.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I intervene briefly to concentrate on one aspect of the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, and indeed by many other noble Lords; namely, the question of sport in schools and in the education system generally.
The noble Lord, Lord Archer, expressed regret: at batting No. 10. I hope that he will recognise my sensitivity at being No. 11, although of course that is where most people who have seen me bat think is where I should be placed. However, I have batted higher in the order than that. On one occasion in Singapore I played for the British Army against an Australian service eleven. The noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, may be interested to hear that I batted No. 3, first wicket down. However, the first ball I received took my off-stump out of the ground. I returned to the pavilion and was somewhat mollified to find on the score sheet opposite my name the words, "bowled Miller.K". I did not feel quite so badly about the situation after that.
There seems nowadays in some quarters in this country to be some kind of cultural or ideological prejudice against sports in schools, especially if they include team games and competitive sports. When he spoke at a primary school in east London on Monday, Mr. Charles Clarke, the schools Minister, is reported to have said that team sports will no longer be a compulsory part of the national curriculum for 14 to 16 year-old pupils. I much regret that. He then said there was,
"no question of diminishing the importance and value of competitive team games in all our schools".
As the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, said, there seems to be an internal contradiction in those two statements. When the Minister replies I hope that he will be able to assure the House—as there is a certain feeling abroad on this subject—that the Government have no prejudice against team sports and competitive games being part of school curricula.
My own experience at school, and my observations over the many long years since, lead me to believe that organised sports and competitive team games are especially important—indeed, I would go so far as to say they are essential—in the education of young men and women. As noble Lords have said, they teach and instil such important virtues as leadership—there is a distinct shortage of that at the moment—esprit de corps and self-discipline (perhaps one of the most important qualities of all) as well as promoting physical health and well-being. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams. of Elvel, said, this is an integral part of the fabric of our national life.
In this context it is interesting to study an excellent report, which some noble Lords may have seen, entitled Learning to Succeed. It is a report of the Paul Hamlyn Foundation National Commission on Education. As some noble Lords may know, this was set up in 1991 following Sir Claus Moser's presidential address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in the summer of 1990. In that speech he called for a Royal Commission to carry out an overall review of the education and training scene. The Government

1457
declined to do that and the national commission, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant, carried out a comprehensive, and, I think, excellent survey of what was needed in the United Kingdom to achieve higher standards in education to match those in the rest of the world. However—I say this not as a criticism of the report of the commission but simply as an example of modern trends—it contains no reference whatever to sports or games as an integral part of education and training.
Unhappily I believe this is a problem that will affect state schools especially. In independent schools there is still a certain emphasis on sports and games. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, said, the facilities provided are much inferior to those available in many other countries. Nowadays it is comparatively rare—even in the independent sector—to find a school which insists on everyone in the school taking part in sports and games. It is, of course, arguable whether this is a good or a bad trend. There are those who think that the old spirit of mens sana in corpore sano is outdated and archaic and that it should be forgotten. My own view is quite simple; namely, that a school in which no attention is paid to team and individual sports and games is one which provides an incomplete education. Indeed it is notable—we ought to note this—that even those schools which do place emphasis on sports and games offer more often sports of an individual character such as fencing, archery and target sports rather than those of a team character. It is possible to argue quite convincingly that we lag behind many other countries in recognising the importance of all this.
The rules on the disposal of school playing fields recently published by the Government are an example. As the noble Lord, Lord Feldman, pointed out, the National Playing Fields Association has already said that the rules are much too weak to prevent land being sold off for other purposes. A spokesman for the Department for Education and Employment recently confirmed that not one of the 65 applications received so far for the disposal of playing fields has been refused. I hope, like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the Minister can reassure us that the scheme to prevent playing fields being sold off for other purposes will be given more "teeth."
As most of your Lordships will know—and as many have mentioned today—the noble Lord. Lord Cowdrey, has given great service to sport in this country. He has done us a considerable service today by raising this important issue and introducing the debate with such skill and passion. I hope that when the Minister replies he will give the House some encouragement. If, as the noble Lord's Motion suggests, we are to improve sport in the United Kingdom, we cannot afford to let this vital aspect not only of training but of life wither away in our schools.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I have not asked my noble friend Lord Cowdrey in which sports he still participates but, having contributed so much to our
1458
enjoyment by his long career in cricket, perhaps he may now relax; he is obviously helping others to follow in his footsteps. That was shown in his speech today.
Television is blamed for many of the young's ills and for their absence from sporting activities. But, surely, the excellent coverage of tennis and golf has led to many young people taking up sports in which they might not have considered participating.
One of the problems with sport in schools is that of children being either bussed to and from home or taken home by car immediately after lessons. There is no incentive for such pupils to stay on for activities on the field or in the gym. There is also disturbing evidence that from a very young age children are overweight. As my noble friend Lord Feldman mentioned, over time that surely leads to increasing problems with health when they become adults. That surely could be helped by more sport in their early years, perhaps starting at the age of five.
To be honest, I do not think I enjoyed lacrosse; I did not enjoy netball. But I have persevered with tennis and golf and have tried to keep fit. The Government should provide more facilities with enthusiastic coaches to ensure that we regain the high ground in so many sports at which in the past—as many noble Lords have said—as a country we have excelled. Good facilities and support from parents and instructors should ensure that the young grow to be fitter and healthier and generally better citizens in this now multicultural society.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I speak in the same debate as two of my boyhood heroes. I always remember with huge affection my noble friend Lord Glentoran many years ago when, as Robin Dixon. he used to go whizzing down the slopes at full speed with Tony Nash and win gold medals. I used to think what a marvellous job he was doing for our country in such an amateurish way—but in such a professional way for those times. There was a very good programme on television recently which showed how amateurish everything was in those days compared with today. It brought home to me that at that time they were ahead of the game.
My other hero was the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard. I regret to say that at my school, "Slough Grammar", one was either a Cowdrey or a Sheppard fan. I was a Sheppard man through and through. Now I have had a transfer of teams and I find that the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, is my noble friend. I thank him for introducing the debate.
I should declare an interest as a director of the British Show Jumping Association and a judge of that sport. I am a professional commentator on many sports. I have had the enormous pleasure of seeing my child at European championships and of hearing the National Anthem played for her. Nothing gives so much pleasure as having the National Anthem played for oneself or for someone to whom one is close.
The lottery has had the most amazing effect on sport. It is a great testimony to the previous government. Many would cry that there are not many testimonies to the

1459
previous government. The lottery definitely is. It is the best thing that ever happened to sport. I hope that it will go on to provide centres of excellence all over the country, with all-weather surfaces so that people can play, inside and out, at all times of the year. One of the problems with new football stadia is that the sun never gets to dry out the ground because of the overhang. Therefore, no one can practise on the football ground; it is necessary to go elsewhere. There is a great lack of proper training facilities around the country. The lottery is providing fantastic grants—grants for directors of coaching; grants for administration; grants for individuals to participate. That leads to better organisation and I hope to better competition.
The Government should address very soon the question of rate relief for sporting grounds. Many sporting facilities are crippled merely by having to pay rates. Voluntary sports clubs should be eligible for charitable status. We should have one Minister to cover all aspects of sport. I am aware that we have a Minister for Sport in the form of Tony Banks. In the horse world, with which I am most involved, if we want to do anything we have to deal with six different ministries—agriculture, the Treasury, the Home Office, transport, education and employment, as well as culture, media and sport. That is five too many. Things should be much more centralised so that when there is a problem in the sporting world we consult one person, who deals with all the other organisations therein.
We should surely encourage international sporting events to take place here. They generate income for local and national economies, create enormous incentives for the people of the country and encourage particular sports to flourish. Is it not a fact that after every Wimbledon we see more people than ever running around the streets with tennis rackets in their hands; and that after the Open, golf courses are flooded out?
We must persuade TV and the media to promote all sports, not only the few they do. The two sports I am particularly interested in, badminton and show jumping, are particularly badly let down by both TV and the media. Last year in badminton we had the world championships; this year we had the European junior championships; and next year we have the European championships themselves—but hardly a word at all about them in the newspapers. In the world of show jumping we have the European championships later this year. We have some of the top riders in the country—hut not a word.
During the alternative Olympics, many disabled people worked so hard to do well for this country—and excelled for this country. But where was the publicity in the newspapers? One would not have even known the alternative Olympics were going on. That is a terrible thing.
As sport becomes more professional, so the whole of our organisation of sport today needs to be more professional. We need discipline. Discipline is a matter of respect: respect for the sport that one plays; respect for one's fellow man; and respect for one's country or for one's team. If one lets down that team or that person, then one loses one's self-respect.
1460
We should remind the media that the Olympics take place every four years and that it takes that long to get organised and fit and prepared for them. One cannot expect everything to happen in the year of the Olympics. Our media seem to be very bad and expect everything to happen in a short space of time, which it certainly does not.
All this takes money. The lottery funds should not be sidelined from what they were supposed to support—and sport was one of the five good causes. Sport England has drawn down only 56.6 per cent of its funding; the Sports Council for Northern Ireland 58 per cent; the Scottish Sports Council 42.5 per cent; and the Sports Council for Wales 57.4 per cent. That means there is presently £6,602,216,053 sitting doing nothing.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will straightaway say that the money is there for potential use when the necessary matching funding is found. But with over £6½ billion sitting there, would it be possible to set up a fund whereby the interest on it could be put back into other areas of sport to make sports funding even greater? I see no reason why that should not happen. It would not hurt any of the organisations that already have money; but it would certainly help to pool more money—money that will make all the difference.
I wish this country all that is best in the world, and I hope that we do well in sport in the future. But there is an awful lot to be tackled. At least we are beginning to talk about it and get on with it.
5 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, an inevitable nostalgia has crept into today's proceedings. My noble friend Lord McNally referred to the 1953 Cup Final with the blessed Stanley Matthews. I was there. It has been a particular pleasure to see Messrs Cowdrey and Sheppard in partnership again. I, like most other noble Lords, cheerfully echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, about the spirit of the game. It is easy to dismiss the imponderables of sport as sentimental and unimportant, but they are at the heart. The way in which the noble Lord dealt with that point was ideal.
Perhaps I may take up one aspect mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard. He spoke of the unbroken chain of sport, starting with the village club and the small town sports club, and working all the way through to national sides and national excellence. That is true. We cannot hope for revived glory in terms of national success unless we look to the roots of sport.
I want to refer briefly to the absence of charitable status for sports clubs, which was touched on by the previous speaker. Charitable status is not a minor matter. It would have a galvanic effect on resources for sport at the lowest level—the level of the village anti small town. It would be a more effective way of priming the pump of sports for all, particularly where organised sports are most needed. It would be the most effective way of achieving that objective.
Perhaps I may briefly remind the House of the advantages of charitable status. There is complete tax exemption for any income earned from dividends and bank interest; there is complete tax exemption on any

1461
capital gains made, as for instance by the occasional sale of a sports field in order to acquire something better. More importantly, anyone who donates to a charitable sports club receives complete tax exemption in terms of capital gains, income tax and inheritance tax. Many noble Lords will be aware of the importance to charities these days of legacy income. It needs little imagination to see that many a grateful member of a local sports club would leave a legacy on death for the club to buy new equipment, to help in funding a new pavilion or whatever else. Charitable status is, therefore, a vital achievement at which to aim, and one that should be within the realms of possibility.
The drawback is the completely muddled state of charity law. There is in the way of giving charitable status to ordinary sports clubs a case which is 104 years old, Re Nottage— a decision of the House of Lords involving a bequest by will of Mr Nottage to the ocean-going yacht club of those days—of which there were only about 40 members, all of them the millionaires and billionaires of their time. Mr. Nottage left a bequest for silver cups for the winners of the club's annual jaunts. Even in the conditions of the time it was not so surprising that Mr Justice Lopes and others found the notion somewhat preposterous, given that charity law is built upon the notion of exclusive public interest.
That decision has been a roadblock to charitable status for sports clubs ever since. Given that charity law is one of the most vibrant branches of common law—for which we are all grateful—we are left in the hopeless position that no one can ever afford to challenge the decision in Re Nottage. In order to do, the case must be taken to the House of Lords, because only the House of Lords can overrule its own decisions. No one in their right mind would want to bear the burden of changing charity law at a cost that could run into six figures of a considerable quantity.
It is sad that the Rugby Football Union, which agreed to shoulder a challenge to Re Nottage, was frustrated two years ago when the particular small rugby club in north Devon that was chosen as the banner carrier of this legal charge decided that, after all, it might want to turn professional if the game proceeded along a certain course, little knowing that the London Scottish and Richmond are on the point of going bust. But that is another story.
I hope that, in replying, the Minister may comment on whether or not the Government will give serious consideration to implementing the recommendations of the Goodman committee, which reported in the early 1960s. The committee suggested that the Recreational Charities Act 1958, which was supposed to improve the law somewhat in the general field of charity and recreation, should be clarified. There again is a dead monument of statute law. Again, an obscure enactment has not been judicially reviewed, because no charity will under any but the most exceptional circumstances devote donated funds to bringing expensive court cases.
First, I urge the Government to reconsider the Goodman recommendations. Secondly, I refer briefly to the fact that at this very minute the Charity Commission
1462
is undertaking a consultation on a review of charity law vis-à-vis sports and the Recreational Charities Act 1958. Given that exclusive public benefit is the touchstone of charitableness, the present argument that the Charity Commission feels obliged to maintain to prevent the small sports club from having charitable status is that it bestows on the members of such clubs too substantial a private benefit: they receive too much enjoyment from it; it is too much about their own way of life, and the rest.
I should like the Government to give consideration to this point: I maintain that if the Charity Commission persists in that view, and if amending the 1958 Act is impossible, it is not beyond the wit of legislators to introduce a short amendment to existing charities legislation to allow amateur sports clubs to which members of the public have open access and which are not involved in sports which by their nature are available to only a small section of the public, the benefits of charitable status—as indeed some are presently allowed under the rating legislation and who benefit from that.
I conclude with this thought. Under present charity law the situation is bizarre. A skating rink can have charitable status; as can a swimming-pool; as can the pursuit of chess. But because by the nature of some sports people have to form teams, it is suggested that the personal benefit is suddenly obnoxious in terms of charitable status. Plainly, if you have teams, you must have clubs—you cannot have teams without clubs.
I would say, as others have said, that it is the very fact of combining together in teams that gives such intense public benefit at a time of fracturing communities, fragmenting society, de-communalisation, isolation and all the things to which others have referred. The existence and thriving of sports clubs in our communities have achieved a social importance today that they have never had before. That is particularly so as school sports are in decline and sports clubs locally are often the only routes to sporting activity, not just for adults but young people and people at school.
I hope very much that, although this has been an extremely sketchy review of a complex subject, the Government will give active consideration to doing that which would have more impact on sports for all than anything else.
5.10 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to my noble friend Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge on his clarion call for the return of integrity in our national sports. It was a call to bring back the successes in which he featured so magnificently in the past. The greatest need for all forms of sport is the availability of playing fields in which to nurture the developing talents of our growing youth. We need green spaces everywhere, not just in the great stadia and county grounds but particularly in schools and local greens. I declare an interest as one of the band of honorary advisers to the National Playing Fields Association, like my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord McNally.

1463
The NPFA has an agreeable understanding with the department, as is clearly demonstrated in Circular 3/99 issued on Monday. This is an ambitious programme and the aims are excellent. But there is an element that says, "All right, if you insist on selling, then there are caveats about the use of the money raised." There is the presumption that sales will continue which is worrying.
I would like to ask the Minister why, when the provision of playing fields is so vital to sport, the NPFA, which is the specialist organisation, has no formal role in protecting them. Secondly, why do we not have statutory protection for recreational space? Does the Minister believe that Section 77 is sufficient?
We ask for a total embargo on currently used playing fields being sold. Tough guidance, as propounded in the circular, is not good enough. Nevertheless, it is a step forward and the Government are to be congratulated so far as the measure goes. It goes a bit further than some of the measures that my party put in earlier. I say that in advance before the Minister says it to my face!
The pressure is constantly upon school governors and local authorities to provide space for the ever growing menace of the car and its all devouring need for parking space and the Government's demand for increased housing, with the accompanying mantra of "infill brown spaces". Hard-pressed people need the authority of law to overcome the commercial interests that abound in that part of local politics. In particular, it is the village green and open spaces close to housing which are so important to nurture the spontaneous kick-about, spaces close to home rather than the formal football pitch which is usually on the boundaries of the town. We need space where there is room for recreation and informal development. A particular and, unhappily, typical example is the current NPFA struggle to preserve Fosters Field in Sherborne, which my noble friend Lord Monro mentioned. It is close to my neck of the woods. The council wants to use it for housing in spite of the fact that Fosters Field is the only green space in the heart of Sherborne and should be used for a children's playground and a public park for the residents. It is the Government in the shape of the DfEE who are to make the decision. The NPFA and the Central Council for Physical Recreation are firmly behind the local campaign to preserve the fields for community recreation. Those bodies need the support of the Minister very badly. I ask the Minister: will he give that support?
That is but a micro-example of the problems that abound throughout the country. It is in such spaces that our future football stars can develop their talents. The Government pledged to protect playing fields, but here we are, two years into the Parliament and the sale of school playing fields continues. No fewer than 668 playing fields have been under threat since 1996, as my noble friend Lord Chalfont said. Since October last year, when all school disposals were reviewed by the Secretary of State, over 100 applications have been made and some 65 have been approved. The department's brief says that there is a virtual halt on the selling off of playing fields. May that virtual halt be fixed in the Government's mind. May it long continue. Given the fields, we need the time in the curriculum and
1464
the teachers to turn out and inspire the team and the competitive spirit and sportsmanship which develop from self-discipline which will bring back the sportsmanship we need in this country.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, it is with some hesitation that I speak in this important debate, so superbly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge. I have always been hopelessly unathletic all my life. Nevertheless, I believe I am qualified to take part because, as a teacher, a school head, a parent and, for the past six years, chairman of governors of a large comprehensive inner-city school, I have seen for myself the importance of sport in the overall development of children from early years, through adolescence to adulthood.
I have also noticed how often those who excel in team sports at school go on to top positions in industry, banks and the professions—not to mention becoming right reverend Prelates and noble Lords. I was surprised at one time that so many headmasters, particularly in the Headmasters' Conference of schools, were rugger players. I realise now that it is not simply through school life being a scrum that headmasters develop the ability to operate in a team with a structure of rules, to support colleagues, to take pleasure in the prowess and success of their team mates, to be observant of the needs of others and even to take appropriate risks. The same goes for cricket, as nobly exemplified by the leader of the debate today.
Educationists declare the merits of a well-rounded education. John Colet, who founded St Paul's School, put it well. Key words for him were severity—in modern parlance, rigour—liberality and breadth. Professor Howard Gardener, of Harvard University, has developed the theory of multiple intelligences. He identifies seven. The traditional two are linguistic ability and logico-mathematical ability. But others are spatial and physical ability; games and dancing. Keith Lester, who choreographed the Windmill shows during the war and then became director of the Royal Academy of Dancing, always used to say that ballet was geometry in motion. There are interpersonal skills—another of the seven intelligences. That means how you get on with other people. Surely that includes sportsmanship and fair play. Then there are the intra-personal skills: how good you are at assessing yourself, your own strengths and weaknesses, how to be a winner and how to be a good loser.
These important intelligences are at the heart of good sporting activities. Moreover, boys and girls who are not doing well in academic subjects can gain confidence and determination by practising a sport and doing well at it. A successful woman sculler some years ago, when asked the secret of her success, replied that she kept repeating to herself as she was practising, "Only you can decide what you want to do. You can do it. You must keep at it". Was it not an American baseball coach who pointed out that "potential" means, "You ain't done nothing yet"?

1465
Because I appreciate the importance of sport, especially team games, in the development of our children and teenagers I am saddened to see the place of physical education shrinking, and often withering, within so many schools as the national curriculum becomes more and more pressurised. Many teachers, who, a few years ago, gave freely of their time coaching school teams, accompanying them to matches on Saturdays and supporting and encouraging the players, find that administrative tasks, especially the unbelievable amount of paperwork they are asked to do, have eaten into their time. That is more common in state schools than independent schools where the difference is remarkable.
Moreover, all teachers are now pressured into raising standards in the classroom, often in difficult circumstances, and just do not have the energy or time left to work with sports teams. Apart from the demands of the curriculum itself, changed conditions of service have hit many extra-curricular activities. Staff in state schools who have been involved in school sport have become reluctant to devote their Saturdays to it. A teacher friend of mine tells me that in the early 1980s his comprehensive school in Yorkshire had approximately 20 staff running teams on Saturdays. After the new terms and conditions were introduced the only staff to run teams were the few full-time members of the PE staff.
I could take up more than my allotted time were I to relate the full story of the deterioration in sport in the past few years. We have already heard about school playing fields being sold off by local councils, the failure to maintain cricket pitches and sports fields and the lack of government encouragement. By "encouragement" I mean funding of sporting facilities in schools. No thought has been given to the provision of good quality coaching. Councils are not always co-operative, and are rarely pro-active, in making sure that playing fields, swimming pools and tennis courts within their control are accessible to schools that do not have adequate sports facilities of their own. I hope that I have made clear the value of sport in the overall development of the young as an integral, not add-on, component of basic education.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Moore of Wolvercote: My Lords, at No. 17 not only do I fail to get into the cricket side; I do not even get into the rugby 15. However, I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate. Like other noble Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, for having initiated the debate. There is no one in your Lordships' House better qualified than the noble Lord to speak about sport. The noble Lord made one of the best speeches that I have ever heard in your Lordships' House. I can go one better than the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I played cricket against the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, 50 years ago in a qualifier match against Tonbridge school, of which the noble Lord was captain. I do not think that either of us made 100 that day, but I had a great triumph: I managed to recruit Colin Cowdrey for my college at Oxford.
1466
I have been involved in sport ever since the age of two when my father put a cricket bat into my hands. Sport has helped me enormously morally, mentally and physically. We all need release from our work from time to time and this can often be found in sport, whatever its form, whether it be batting in the middle, shoving in the scrum or quietly fishing. One can then return to work feeling completely refreshed. I can bear personal witness to the truth of the old dictum (quoted by my noble friend Lord Chalfont) mens sana in corpore sano—a healthy mind in a healthy body.
But the value of sport lies not only in the pleasure and release that it gives; it can also provide invaluable character training, whether in team games or individual sports. The first lesson in sport is to learn how to lose gracefully, and that is also the hardest part. One was taught at school that the first thing one did on losing a rugby match was to give three cheers to the winners. Perhaps it was done through gritted teeth but it was very good for the character. But character training is not concerned solely with learning how to lose. Team games teach us how to work together. "Team spirit" may be a hackneyed phrase but it is a very real element in sport. A member of a team plays with and for the others and this involves trust and friendship. Those privileged to experience this will never forget the bonds that it creates.
For 20 years I was fortunate enough every four years to attend the Commonwealth Games, which exemplify much of what is best in sport. In the games village the competitors mingled happily together, helped by having English as a common language. The Commonwealth Games are rightly called the friendly games. If this is part of the ethos behind sport, what lessons do we learn for the future? As many noble Lords have said, the first is the importance of organised games in school curricula. Private schools understand this, but there is a terrible neglect of games in state schools. I have seen young boys and girls longing to play games but their schools providing little opportunity for it and their parents either not understanding or being unable to afford the equipment. If games have anything like the importance that I have suggested surely there should be more compulsory games periods in all school curricula. It is no good suggesting that parents should do this. How can they organise team games? This is primarily a duty for the schools.
I turn from schools to a wider purview of the sporting scene. One finds that the media and money are the dominant factors today. I had an early introduction to the significance of television for sport. It was 50 years ago that I played for Blackheath against the Harlequins at Twickenham in the first rugby match ever to be televised in this country or the world. We were three all with a minute to go when the Harlequins lay on the ball under their posts and we were given a penalty. I took the kick but lifted my head. The ball hit the crossbar and rebounded into my hands. I dropped for goal but the ball hit an upright, bounced back and the final whistle blew.
Normally, only the players and small crowd would have seen my humiliation, but on television the whole of Britain appeared to be watching it. My leg was pulled

1467
unmercifully for weeks afterwards. Such is the power of television. Television has been very beneficial for sport. One must never forget that sport gives immense pleasure to spectators as well as participants and has made it possible for millions more to watch sport at the highest level. That is all the more reason why the best sport should be available to everyone on television. It is very sad that in this sport-loving country so much top level sport is available only on satellite television which 85 per cent of the population cannot afford. I was glad, therefore, to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, say in your Lordships' House the other day that the Government would continue to monitor the need for another review of this question.
One of the greatest challenges in sport today lies in the money provided by television. Even rugby union, the stronghold of amateurism, has become professional at the top level. Of course, the money is valuable in providing better facilities and professional training. However, playing for money involves an even sterner test of character in avoiding retaliation and accepting the decisions of umpires and referees without dissent. Watching modern sport, I can only hope that the players enjoy it as much as we did as amateurs 50 years ago.
I conclude with an illustration which matches the one given by the noble Lord, Lord Archer, about snooker. As every cricketer knows, the only person who really knows whether the ball has just touched his bat is the batsman. Neither the umpire nor the commentators nor the third umpire can be certain, even with the help of the might of television. This is the umpire's nightmare. That is why Colin Cowdrey, as the noble Lord was then known, used to walk for the pavilion the moment he realised that he had touched the ball. That is what sport is all about.
5.31 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, it is funny how times have changed in the course of a single lifetime. I was brought up on meat and two veg, with red meat in some form or another on about five days out of every seven; chicken was an occasional Sunday roast; pasta was eaten only in the form of spaghetti bolognaise; there was a sweet to finish off the main meal; and, of course, cheese with everything. Nowadays, the advice is that we should eat five portions of vegetables or fruit, red meat no more than once a week, chicken or turkey for the rest of the time and pasta with everything.
Similarly, at school we had compulsory gym for one double period per week and compulsory games: rounders, netball, hockey, football and rugby for the boys., lacrosse, tennis and cricket. The lucky ones were also able to do athletics and swimming. At weekends, our parents would take us out of doors to play yet more games. Any hint of boredom or a comment such as "There is nothing to do around here" was replied to, "There is walking or biking". In other words, sport formed an important part of my life.
Nowadays, children still have a double period of gym, but games have been reduced to one session per week. It would appear that almost any excuse for missing them is accepted. To cap it all, as other noble Lords have
1468
mentioned, the Government are now proposing that from the age of 14, all children can choose to opt out of all team games.
Like other noble Lords, I believe that sport and exercise are good for you and that the use of team games in this context was well supported last weekend in the Sunday Telegraph by a number of famous sportsmen.
FranÇois Pienaar said, "Team sports have taught me so many good things—team spirit, loyalty. It has made me a better person. It brings you together and makes you focus on one of the crucial aspects of life, which is caring for one another in the collective pursuit of wanting to win". Our own Sebastian Coe said, "Team sport teaches young people about winning and losing with dignity", a point again reflected by other noble Lords.
Earlier on, I worked as a tennis coach. I started by playing tennis at school and then went on to play at my club, I have to say at a very humble level and not at the distinguished level attained by many other noble Lords who spoke earlier. It was a great joy for me to play sport at school. I was christened in those days "the baby elephant", the one who had a lot of guts and go but not much skill! But we tried, we persevered and we enjoyed it.
When I came back to the club, I continued as a club member. Some 10 years later, I was asked if I would consider teaching and coaching juniors. For me, this was a new start in the late 1950s. The most wonderful thing about it was to see youngsters with a dawning recognition that they could actually do it. Hand and racket co-ordination, moving on to the ability to keep a rally going and the progression to match play all resulted in the growth of self-confidence. Doubles play. on the other hand, led to an acceptance that they did much better when they worked together to win rather than fall out.
The local tennis club in my village was a hugely important place. It was therefore a great joy for me when this weekend, some 40 years later, I drove past and saw a whole group of youngsters yet again attending the club for coaching sessions which were being freely given by people who followed on and took up from where I left off, because indeed I was an amateur.
Looking at this next generation of youngsters, how are we going to produce them and from whence are they going to come? They start in the schools. For the majority of people, this is where they are first introduced to sport. Michael Lynagh, returning to his quotes, put it very well when, speaking about team games, he said "Team games teach children to play with each other, to mix in while trying to achieve a common set of goals. After all, that is what most of us spend the rest of our lives trying to do, whether at work or at play".
To mix in while trying to achieve a common set of goals should not be a bad motto for all of us who are involved in training, in organisations or in any sphere of human endeavour. I accept that some project work can achieve this to a limited degree. However, I feel that the combination of physical activity and mental application, the need for skill in spatial relationships, which my noble friend mentioned earlier, the learning and

1469
implementation of rules and the subordination of self to referee or umpire are all important matters in the growth of the individual.
Today's Question, posed so aptly by my noble friend Lord Cowdrey, allows me to observe that opting out of team games at 14 is, to quote yet another sportsman, Jack Potter of the Australian Cricket Academy, "a cop out". Moreover, it raises serious issues relating to the organisation and funding of sport within our schools.
At the moment, most children come to sport through the school curriculum. The three options of games, dance or gymnastics will be handled comfortably in most schools. However, swimming, athletics and particularly outdoor activities, such as the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme, will necessitate either considerable investment by schools or regular expenditure on visits to places where these pursuits can be carried out safely and to recognised standards.
I pose to the Minister the following questions. Will the Government provide new money for the building of specialised facilities in state schools? Will the Government provide transport or the cost of transport to existing facilities? Will the parents of those children opting out of team games at 14 be expected to pay for their offspring's new enthusiasms? Finally, will the secondary schools receive additional funding to pay for the extra teaching and supervision that will be needed to cover these other options? If more options are provided, it follows that more teachers will be needed.
One of my noble friends mentioned the question of providing finance to clubs and the unbroken chain, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard. I hope that in my comments I have reflected the importance that I attach to that matter. Wearing a very rural hat, I would suggest that in some villages they are the only social meeting places in which children are able to meet. It is a hugely important point.
Finally, as a parent and now a grandparent watching little ones coming through, I would like all parents to have the right to choose team games for their children. I firmly believe that they confer multiple benefits and that the more solitary pursuits can be kept either for outside school hours or later life. Willie John McBride put it very well when he said:
"I am amazed. As a society, we have lost our way, particularly in the area of youth and schools. Team sports are very important to later life. They build a better man or a better woman. Team sports are about loyalty and honesty and other great words which seem to be disappearing from society".
I agree with Saturday's Daily Telegraph, whose headline read:
"BLUNKETT'S DEATH KNELL? Minister's edict would further destroy team ethic".
I hope that our debate this afternoon has reflected our concerns about the demise of school team sports. While others have talked about excellence, I have concentrated my remarks on the broad base of sport from which we gain our expertise. Sport has been and still is an important part of my life. I hope that we have highlighted the benefits that sport can bring to future generations.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when it comes to making a summing up speech in a debate of this nature, one is always aware that virtually everything one wanted to say has been said, and usually better said. Therefore, all one can do is to enlarge on the various points that have been made.
The point I should like to make straight away is that all speakers have mentioned school sports. School sports are important, but we always forget that if you go to school you are required to play a certain sport. There are people who do not like that sport. I have heard many horror stories about people being forced to play Rugby Union, which is my sport. Their idea of Rugby Union, which is a game of grace, power, tactics and awareness, is of being hit hard in the chest, hitting cold wet ground and being walked on. My experience of soccer, or football, if I may be more democratic about its title, was of standing around in goal, being rained on and waiting for a crowd of players to come and kick me in the shins. As I became better at rugby I realised how to use a few tactical fouls to keep them at a distance and made them take longer shots. That meant that I became quite a good goalkeeper. Indeed, it prepared me for rugby in later life. But the idea that something might go wrong invariably stops someone trying a sport. We should remember that there is always a down side.
The more positive side of school sports is that they help people. Surely, in a modern society, when we have many sports available to us, sport must become a sampling process. We have a tradition of a great diversity of sporting activities. Surely we should be trying different types of sport and trying to bring in the clubs in a way that will allow people to try different sports. Under the current educational system, there is not time to give the same attention to team sports as was given previously. In schools, there are the standard assessment tests and a greater concentration on exams. There are reports, literacy hours and maths hours. Indeed, when will we have a history half hour, the technology 20 minutes and so on? That will all come and it is all pressure on time. Teachers do not need a second pair of hands in that environment; they need a clone. It is that simple. The man hours are not available. The pupils themselves will become tired. A tired mind stops you playing sport to the same extent as a tired body. So we have to be more realistic about school sports. We have to try to build up links with clubs and try to get them interested. That is one way forward.
It is also the case that clubs tend to be up to date with what is going on. Games teachers who took their coaching qualifications 20 years ago do not have a great reputation for improving their sports. Another point is that if you go outside to participate in sport, the social interaction is outside the confines of the school. You are there because you want to be there. Schools must take on a role which involves trying and sampling. It is not an opt-out; it is actually more difficult. It has to be a case of, "Try a new sport".
We have heard about "quick cricket". Rugby Union and Rugby League play a shortened version of their own sport which allows people to become involved. I am

1471
sure that most of the horror stories that I heard about Rugby Union would have been slightly less intense if that smaller person had not had to run into the biggest one on the field and had received the ball in his hands a few times. A little success encourages people. The same is true of all other sports. We need properly qualified teachers and we need to give them opportunities within the system to train and to keep up to date. In that way we will do better. But we shall have to fight very hard with the Department for Education to achieve that.
That brings me on to another point. Is the Minister for Sport a big enough fish to give himself the opportunity to survive in the shark tank of politics? I do not refer to the Minister himself. However, if we are trying to get an emphasis on sport, we need support. The Department for Education has already been mentioned. When it comes to club sports, other bodies are involved: the Home Office, the Department of the Environment and local government. As the noble Lords, Lord Rowallan and Lord Phillips, pointed out, we must look at the financial status of small clubs if we are asking them to take on this role of education and participation and providing a bedrock for excellence in sport. We need to encourage them. If we give them charitable status and rates relief, that will release funds. Most amateur clubs rely on subscriptions, match fees and bar profits. They are run by volunteers. If, whenever we can, we remove the financial burden on them we will be able to give them a boost. Indeed, if various parts of government and the Treasury were a little more generous, they might well make long-term savings. People are interested and want to become involved in sport. They enjoy it and get a lift from it. It is important that we allow that to happen. We can push on.
If we are interested in excellence in sport we must give the correct training and advice to our sportsmen so that they can reach a top level. The new United Kingdom Sports Institute is helping in that direction. However, we are all the time putting greater demands on people. As a Rugby Union player, I would regard myself not as a dinosaur but as a woolly mammoth. I quit at the end of the amateur period. The pressure on modern sportsmen is immense. They push themselves to the edge. They need help with dietary requirements and with career counselling after they finish. Any sportsman's career can be over in seconds. We must also ensure that there are better trained sports physicians. We are starting to take such matters on board.
The psyche of any nation is probably well represented by the way it reacts to sporting events. It seems to me that we should be winning but we are not. Why is that the case? We have not quite grasped the nettle of that fact that we can do something about it. It is starting to come through. But we will never have back the glory days because most of the time we remember only one glorious year. We do not remember the five on either side of it when we did not win anything. We see football as our national game and believe that we have the divine right to win. I would suggest that the results in the World Cup suggest that the Brazilians and the Italians have that divine right, closely followed by the Germans and not us. When it comes to cricket, I did not like
1472
England going out any more than anyone else, but at least we can safely say that it is now a world game. As someone who watched cricket throughout the 1980s, is it not vaguely reassuring to know that we are now at least as good as the West Indies?
Unless we take a holistic approach to this issue and remember that sport is important to our entire society—the learning process, the participation process, the fact that it provides heroes and role models, and the fact that it provides something for people to watch as they get older and slower—we will always leave it to fend for itself. There will always be cases of the lucky and the brilliant making it through. But unless we approach the issue in a holistic way, considering all the factors which apply to sport, we shall always come second best. We do not have to do a lot in one area but a little in many areas.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, when I stepped out of the British Rowing VIII after the Olympic final in 1984, after seven seasons on the international circuit, at 50 kilos—under eight stone—I vowed then and there that I would eat my way through the rest of my life rather than shift grain in Mortlake Brewery. I kept to that, save for one unfortunate episode of steering the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in the Speaker's Regatta and having to pull him out of the water.
I made another promise to myself. When I ended my term as Minister for Sport in 1990 I never expected to stand at the Dispatch Box in Parliament to answer a debate on sport. I had no intention of doing so from the Opposition Benches. But today I have the privilege of doing so; and there can be no greater honour when the privilege granted to me and this House was to listen to an opening speech of such eloquence and sound common sense by my noble friend Lord Cowdrey. His three main themes were excellence in sport, the importance of ethics in sport, and the critical importance of the benefit of team games. That was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool. Batting in this context in his rightful place at number three, was my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare.
The preservation of ethical values in sport is essential, as clearly and often amusingly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Wolvercote. It is imperative to campaign for the preservation and promotion of the most positive ethical values which sport engenders, and to support with the greatest determination initiatives aimed at education as well as responsibility in club life to that end.
There was not a great deal addressed to the Minister—no doubt he will be pleased on that front—with regard to current government policy on sport. But what was said was eloquently summarised by my noble friend Lord Monro. The points that he and other noble Lords raised can be summarised by pointing to three key aims of government policy on sport. The first, I believe, is to improve the nation's health. In the UK we have a relatively high death rate from heart disease. Sport and exercise helps to reduce that rate and the heavy call on

1473
health resources. We should promote the benefits of participation in sport for individuals and the community for that reason.
Sport is important as a policy objective for the Government in order to alleviate social deprivation. Sport can and should be used as a policy tool in areas of high unemployment and deprivation. In particular it can provide a catalyst for channelling the energies of the young into constructive and satisfying activities contributing to their self-esteem and discipline. Both recreational and competitive sport can also contribute to community confidence and cohesion especially in pockets of social deprivation.
There is a third aim, an aim which has been discussed and considered by your Lordships this evening; namely, to help to promote excellence in sport, but excellence in behaviour in sport as much as excellence in results in sport. That excellence should be supported by Government at national and international level. Some help will always be necessary to enable prospective international competitors to meet their rivals on equal terms; for success in sport reflects well on both our standing in the world and upon our trade and morale.
The noble Lords, Lord St. John of Bletso, Lord Chalfont, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, focused, and rightly so, on the vital importance of sport's role in education. I wish to pick up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and echoed in part by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard. That is the importance of beginning to develop new initiatives in school sport. I urge the Government to encourage greater involvement of clubs with local schools, local businesses, and the local press: to encourage all those to come together at the local school level so that we do not have to rely exclusively on the PE teacher to assist in the development of sporting opportunities for young children at school.
The clubs have a vested interest in those children because they are their members of the future. I firmly believe that there should be new initiatives to focus on bringing the clubs together with the PE teachers to expand the opportunities for our young men and women. The local press could have columns highlighting success, not necessarily excellence but possibly the participation of an individual for the first time in sport: a good news story providing an opportunity for local businesses to participate and assist in the funding. This nexus, this opportunity to work together, is, I believe, the sort of new initiative that the Government can rightly launch and take forward at a local level.
I was disappointed by the absence of one subject from today's debate. It is important in a debate of this kind to place on record that it is vitally important for any government to focus on opportunities for sport for the disabled. We shall have another debate today on prostheses. When one sees, as I did at the Paralympics, the 100 metres run in under 11 seconds by a sportsman who has a rigid prosthesis from his knee down, one suddenly realises that we should be focusing on the abilities of those sportsmen and women and not their disabilities. I believe that much more can be done by Government to recognise the importance of integration
1474
not segregation; and to recognise that many disabled people desperately want to be integrated into able-bodied sport. Governing bodies can help to bring this about by assuming responsibility for everyone participating in their sports.
I believe that the governing bodies can go further. They can actively encourage disabled athletes to take part in the events and competitions which they organise. Wherever possible, able-bodied and disabled athletes should compete under the same set of rules. This point does not apply only to sportsmen and women who are disabled, but to the able-bodied too. I appeal to governing bodies to give sportsmen and women, whether able-bodied or disabled, a greater say in the decision making and administrative structure of their sport. They should not retire as top level sportsmen, and only 20 years later go on to their governing bodies. As active sportsmen they understand the pressures of the modern world. They understand the issues on the danger of drugs, referred to earlier in an excellent speech. Many sportsmen and women can bring that expertise to the benefit of their governing bodies.
On the subject of drugs, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was right. It is a vitally important issue that Government can do much to tackle. Testing must be independent. Testing must be more effective, rigorous and entirely random. Competitors in all sports must be required, I believe, to make a personal declaration of willingness to undertake tests in or out of competition; and they will. The competitors back that view 100 per cent. They should be given that opportunity. If we do not tackle the problem of drugs in sport, we shall not have competition between sportsmen and women. We shall have competition between chemists' laboratories. Although it is somewhat late in the day as regards the IOC-Lausanne initiative, the IOC needs to do more. It has the money, the opportunity and the status to tackle the problem head on, and to put together an international initiative with the NOCs and governing bodies to ensure that it is tackled vigorously as a number one international problem: to protect our young sportsmen and women from succumbing to the dangers of drug abuse in sport.
Finally, in reflecting on the questions on governing bodies addressed by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I have the great privilege, and have had for a number of years, to be President of the British Biathlon Union. It is interesting that in the BBU we have insufficient funds to do everything that the Government would encourage us to do. The really interesting point, however, is that it is a tragic reflection on the status of the organisation of sport that the real reason why this year the BBU had to cancel all development courses and save £2,000, and had to stop promoting and obtaining a manager for its World Cup team was due to the governing body structure being reformed. The BBU, the new governing body, did not have three years of audited accounts. Yet we have been involved in biathlon for decades. We have been very successful. But, because the regulation says that, in order to apply for a world class performance plan lottery grant, there must be three years of audited accounts, the whole future of those sportsmen—the Michael Dixons of today and tomorrow, is being

1475
jeopardised, and sport cannot be run on a stop-go basis. Every sportsman, to produce his best results, has an eight to 10-year gestation period. We have to back the coaches throughout that period. We have to back the support staff who put in so much time on a voluntary basis. We have to commit resources in the long term through the good results years and the bad results years in order to develop in the future. That highlights the problem: to achieve excellence 'we have to back participation, and, unless we develop and nurture the grass roots over many years, we will not get excellence tomorrow.
In conclusion, it has been an honour to come back to sport, albeit that in about two and a half hours I shall return to foreign affairs. It has been a greater honour to listen to the outstanding contributions that have been made by your Lordships during this debate.
6.1 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I start by echoing the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. It is an honour and a privilege to be asked to wind up this debate for the Government, a debate in which so many distinguished sportsmen and women have taken part, and in which we have had so much evident expertise. It is also, for somebody like myself, rather a problem because when my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel recalled the double century partnership which he had put together 45 years ago, I recalled that 45 years ago I was for a brief time the bar billiards champion of the Oxford Union. It is better than snakes and ladders. At least you have to stand up!
When the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was generous about those who do not want to play Rugby Union, I recalled that at school I used to be a wing threequarter and I would wander up and down the side margins of the field in a long white sweater which reached down below my shorts, hoping that the ball never came near me and usually it did not, so I am utterly unqualified in those terms.
But I do have a story to tell about the Government's commitment to improving sport in the United Kingdom, which is after all the subject of this debate. This Government and, to be fair, all governments, recognise the importance of sport and the need to promote the effective delivery of sporting opportunities at all levels. Of course government have a central role to play in sport. They fund the sports councils—Sport England receives approximately £38 million and UK Sport £12.5 million—they allocate lottery money to sport, at least £200 million a year over the next 10 years through the Sport England lottery sports fund, and they provide PE and sport in schools.
Sport is also a mixed economy. Individual sports are represented by individual independent governing bodies. Local authorities and education authorities are the largest single providers of sports facilities and the strength of sports clubs, which have been saluted by the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, and my noble and right reverend friend, Lord Sheppard, among others, reflects the enthusiasm of one and a half million volunteers in
1476
sporting activities; and their contribution, although it may not be calculated financially, certainly cannot be underestimated.
I know your Lordships think that Government are a manufacturing industry whose purpose is to manufacture White Papers; and I am afraid that it is true that this Government are proposing to publish a sports strategy paper in the autumn of this year. I will not anticipate what that paper might say, but I will use as my theme the three elements in that paper, which will be sport in schools, lifelong participation and excellence. I acknowledge that when we talk about sport in schools and then go on to talk about lifelong participation, we must consider what my noble friend Lord Sheppard called the unbroken chain. We must recognise that unless there are continuing and effective links between sport in schools and sport in clubs, both for children and young people and for adults, then the seamless robe of sporting opportunity and achievement will simply not be available.
I will talk in those three areas, starting with the area of excellence, and then I will deal with some of the points which were raised in the debate. In case there is any misunderstanding about this, I do not propose to talk about the televising of sporting events. This debate has been about participation in sports, net spectator sports, and I think it is better to keep it that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made a very important point when he said that excellence in sport is not simply a matter of results but a matter of behaviour, and that of course was the theme of the remarkable speech of Lord Cowdrey and of many other speeches. I shall come back to excellence in behaviour at the very end of my remarks.
I want to talk first about how we can help with excellence in results. We are determined that our top sportsmen and women should receive world class backing to give them every chance of achieving international success. We are making considerable progress in that area.
One of the problems which has been raised in our participation in international events is the relationship between the United Kingdom as a whole and the four countries which make up the United Kingdom. I certainly agree that there has been an element of confusion as we have been moving towards devolution. I think we have resolved it in the right way. This morning in another place the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport laid an order which will make the UK Sports Council a distributor of lottery funds in its own right; therefore our participation in international events and all of the events which require the United Kingdom to act in a unified way will be under the UK Sports Council.
It is right that in many ways sport should be a devolved matter. The devolved administrations are closer to the grass roots in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They are more able to decide sensibly what is needed for sport in schools and in localities; but when it comes to international competition and the use of lottery funds in particular, which is a reserved matter, it is proper that there should be a single distributor and that will now be the United Kingdom Sports Council.

1477
The noble Lord, Lord Monro, made a point about the sports cabinet, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan. The sports cabinet is chaired by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. It brings together the four sports ministers in the four home countries. It is the political focus for the united effort. It is the sports cabinet who have agreed the arrangements for lottery funding from the UK Sports Council and who will oversee that programme. I think that, on balance, we have got it right. We have devolution where it is needed, and United Kingdom action and funding where that is needed.
I should like to say a few words about some of the elements of the support that we give to our most talented sports people. The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, made a plea for lottery funding and for a network of centres of excellence around the country. That is exactly what is planned with the United Kingdom Sports Institute, based in Sheffield, with 10 associated network sites. It is the centrepiece of the Government's sports policy and will play a key role in promoting sporting excellence. All of the existing Sport England national sports centres will be incorporated into the network. They will have access to specialist science and medical advice. A network centre in Sheffield will provide national facilities for athletics, swimming, netball, table-tennis and judo. There will be performance directors, coaches, athletes and service providers to develop a menu of services to be delivered directly by the network.
The athlete career and development programme will enhance athletes' personal development and sporting performance through access to individualised services to help them to achieve a more balanced approach to their sporting and non-sporting lives. There is to be a high performance coaching programme. Fifty top coaches have already been nominated to benefit from that. All that is being done in close consultation with the relevant governing bodies of the sports. We hope to achieve the right blend of local provision and central co-ordination.
The noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, was good enough to praise the world class programme. The noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, did not praise that programme, but certainly highlighted the importance of such programmes. The programme was launched by Sport England. World-class start encourages young people to participate in sport. They identify promising young people and ensure that their talent is nurtured. The world class potential programme smooths the path from promising youngster to established sportsperson, while the world class performance programme ensures that our elite sportsmen and women receive the support that they require to improve their rankings and to win more competitions for themselves and their country. Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the programme includes people with disabilities, and disabled sports. The British Paralympic Association is involved in the activities.
The world class events programme assists sports governing bodies in their efforts to bring major events, such as the 2006 World Cup, to these shores where, as the Select Committee reported, they could boost the economy, increase levels of active participation and
1478
stimulate urban renewal. The noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, hoped that we would win our bid to host the World Athletics Championship and that the Minister for Sport would be in Seville later this year to boost our claim. I can assure your Lordships that my honourable friend never lets pass any opportunity to promote British sport in any part of the world. I cannot believe that he will not be personally involved in our bid to host the football World Cup or in any top-quality future Olympic bid. Indeed, the Government have been so involved in hosting the cricket World Cup and will be so involved with the rugby union World Cup in the autumn. In the year 2000, we have the rugby league World Cup and in the jubilee year 2002 Manchester will host the Commonwealth Games. I do not think that there can be much doubt that sporting excellence is of critical importance. I shall return to the issue of behaviour.
I turn now to the issue of sport in schools because I am afraid that there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about what is proposed. I emphasise that although a change has been proposed at key stage 4—that is, for 14 to 16-year olds—physical education generally remains compulsory at all key stages. Games have not been dropped at key stage 4. They remain one of the six options. The others are gymnastic activities, athletic activities, swimming, dance, and outdoor and adventure activities. Every young person must take at least two of the six options.
With regard to team games, perhaps I should say that I prefer the phrase "participatory games", which was used by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, because it includes games such as singles tennis. As such games are compulsory between the ages of 5 and 14, it is inconceivable to me that those who want to continue with participatory games and have to take two of the six options between the ages of 14 and 16 will not be able to continue to do so. It is also inconceivable to me that schools will not offer games at key stage 4. However, I echo the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in saying that it is important that those who are turned off by team games—I am well known to be one of them—should still have opportunities to undertake physical activity. That is what I believe that the new, more sensible proposal from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority will do. Perhaps I may advise the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, and the noble Lords, Lord Feldman and Lord Monro, that, contrary to their fears, what is proposed will not "downgrade" team games—I think that that was the word used. For the first time, we have the aspiration that all children should do two hours of PE and sport every week.
I advise the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that we believe that giving young children more choice over what sports they can do serves only to enhance their enjoyment of sport and exercise. People like doing things that they are good at and some people prefer activities such as athletics, swimming or tennis. That is why we accepted the recommendation of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Perhaps I may tell the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that, I, too, read the piece in the Daily Telegraph, but that I agree rather with Phil de Glanville, the England rugby player, that

1479
people should be able to choose whether to play team games or individual sports. Both have to be offered to children—and that is what is happening.
I have left myself very little time to talk about the range of things which will be offered in schools. However, they include sporting ambassadors. I say that in response to the noble Lord, Lord Feldman, who spoke about sporting heroes. Perhaps I may now pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, who chaired the initial working group which considered the scheme. We now have 240 sportsmen and women signed up to be ambassadors. The National Coaching Foundation is developing a personal development package for each sporting ambassador. There is coaching for teachers, including coaching weeks. Among others, the noble Lords, Lord Cowdrey and Lord Archer, referred to the importance of sports teachers. We are not aware of any shortage of PE teachers, but we are certainly aware of their need for in-service training so that they can gain national governing body awards.
We also have "Sportsmark", which is a recognition award for secondary schools which provide a balanced and progressive physical education curriculum. Our active primary schools awards will be introduced in the next year.
There are also all the activities supported by the lottery. Some noble Lords seemed to suggest that there has been a reduction in lottery provision for sport. That is simply not the case. The sports strand of lottery provision is increasing over what was originally intended. In addition, the New Opportunities Fund does two things for sport. First, the after-schools activity strand of NOF will help considerably in providing after-school sports. The green spaces strand of NOF will help considerably in providing more playing fields, particularly on brownfield sites.
If turn now to life-long participation. I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others about the physical advantages of sports participation. The noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to the social benefits of sports interaction and the role of sport in dealing with social deprivation, which is being considered by the Social Exclusion Unit.
I must comment on playing fields because there has been a great deal of confusion—innocent, I am sure—about playing field provision. The Government are determined to prevent the further unnecessary loss of playing fields. The measures we have adopted will require local authorities, schools and developers to consider the needs of school children and local communities for whom playing fields are a vital resource. The Department for Education and Employment has introduced new legislation to require all state schools to seek consent for the sale of playing fields. We are the first Government to do that.
In December 1998, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions published a direction ensuring that wherever Sport England objects to plans to develop any playing field owned by local authorities, where there is no identified surplus, the Secretary of State for the DETR will review the proposals.
1480
The noble Lord, Lord St. John, asked whether Sport England had a veto on planning applications. It does not have a veto, but it is a statutory consultee. It has a strong presumption against allowing any development which would result in a reduction in playing field accommodation.
It is true that some playing field applications have been accepted. After all, a number of them are for schools which have closed or are closing. Of the 109 applications received, 27 have involved areas smaller than a football pitch. But in making comparisons, we must remember that until this Government came into office in 1997, 40 playing fields were being sold off each month. Since October 1998, we have received an average of 12 applications a month. That is the effect of the policies we adopted and I believe that we are stanching the drain of playing field space, which was a conspicuous feature of planning and financial policies under the previous government.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and others referred to drugs in sport. Drug abuse in sport is cheating. The only other thing that can be said about it is that it damages and cheats the person taking the drug as well as the others. The Minister for Sport, Tony Banks, has played an active part in all the proposals for strengthening controls against drug abuse. We have been in advance of the game in every respect. We spend more than £1.35 million a year on 4,500 tests a year; the quality of our out-of-competition blood testing programme is such that the UK Sports Council was the first organisation world-wide to achieve ISO 9002 accreditation for its testing system; and we are active in all the international forums, including Lausanne, to try to deal with the drugs problem.
I say briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that the Charity Commission is consulting on the status of recreational charities and necessary amendments to the Recreational Charities Act 1958. It is preparing a consultation on sport and I shall draw the noble Lord's remarks to it.
Finally, and necessarily briefly, I agree profoundly with those led by the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, who spoke of the need for sportsmanship and a return, as some see it, to a golden age of sportsmanship which some believe has been lost. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, in particular that the captains and the players, rather than the umpires, must be responsible for sportsmanship. I add my voice to those who have called on the national governing bodies of sport to apply the rules of sport firmly and to support the work of thousands of volunteer referees and officials.
This has been an inspiring debate and I have been privileged to take part in it.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge: My Lords, for myself, this has been an exciting afternoon and I appreciate the many fascinating contributions from our wide range of speakers. I was touched in particular by their enthusiasm for the importance of the subject. I hope that today will further the way to more discussions and debates with the various sporting bodies.

1481
I thank the Minister for his warm and encouraging summing up. I say at once that as an undergraduate at the same time as him, I never missed a debate in the Oxford Union—and how I would have loved to have been the bar billiards champion of the Union! I was unfortunate never to receive a champion's nod from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey; that had to come later in life.
Time is getting on and I am satisfied that we have covered the ground with great interest and extremely well. I shall be brief. I shall be pleased if the main planks of the debate are put before the Secretary of State and the Minister for Sport.
Perhaps, finally, I may speak selfishly to the whole House, through Hansard, because every hour of every day I spend in this House my leg is pulled over the demise of English cricket. When England have a particularly bad day I am held wholly to blame. I know that in the days ahead I shall be attacked by the mischievous, who will say, "Funny, in that debate of yours you didn't spend much time telling us about English cricket, did you?". And so perhaps I may give a broadsheet answer to everyone. I learnt early in life that a lot of people are interested in cricket and an awful lot of people are not so interested in cricket. I have always been mindful of the remarks of an amusing broadcaster, Arthur Marshall, who many noble Lords will remember. He could not abide cricket and was once trapped in a game as the guest with a friend for an hour or two. He was able to escape soon after lunch and as he walked out of the gate he said, "Ah, if I find that they play cricket in Heaven I shall just have to pray that there will be an awful lot of rain as well".
I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Latin America
6.27 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein rose to call attention to political developments in Latin America; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we turn from sport to Latin America. Of course, there is a connection between the two because many Latin Americans are good at sports. Football has become the national game in many countries. Some of your Lordships will remember the famous "hand of God".
During the past 23 years in which I have had the good fortune to be in your Lordships' House, I have drawn attention to Latin America on many occasions. I must admit that I owe this good fortune to winning a genetic lottery—as I was the only ticket holder in that particular event there was not much competition—and was given the great opportunity to introduce the subject. I made my maiden speech on Latin America, and on various occasions during those 23 years I have drawn your Lordships' attention not only to the general aspects of this greatly exciting continent but to particular countries.
I appreciate that, due to other legislation which is passing through your Lordships' House, my opportunity to address your Lordships will soon be terminated. That is understandable. Therefore, I am looking upon today's debate as a kind of valedictory review of my time here and my involvement with Latin America.
Perhaps I should declare a few interests because 44 years ago in 1955 I went to live and work in Latin America; briefly in Argentina and Cuba and for longer periods in Chile and El Salvador. I returned to England in 1962. Since then I have travelled, through very good fortune, to every country in the continent, in a variety of capacities: commercial, financial, pro bono publico, parliamentary activities and in honorary capacities. To be able to visit every country in that great continent has been a marvellous experience. I have also been to some of the countries many times, an unforgettable experience that I hope to continue, if the good Lord spares me.
When I first went to Latin America, the political panorama across the continent was completely different. Military governments tended to alternate with civil governments, and democracy was very fragile, with the possible exception of Chile and Costa Rica, followed by Venezuela. Of course, Mexico had its own democratic system, with just one party that won.
Now all that has changed. Democracy has arrived in Latin America. All the countries have stable democratic governments—representative plural democracies. Even Cuba, in its eccentric fashion, has convinced itself that it has a democratic system, although it is not a model that would necessarily commend itself to your Lordships. Things are changing all the time. It is a very interesting situation. The democracies have been established and they are stable. That is an extraordinary change.
I want to review how all that came about. In the 1950s and 1960s the economic philosophy that dominated Latin America emanated from the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA), located in Santiago, under the direction of a remarkable man, Raul Prebisch. That was based on centralised planning and such activities. At the time that did not really work.
I believe that a series of shocks brought about the change. First, there was the oil crisis of 1973 and then the banking crisis of the 1980s. But above all that has been the return of those countries to democracy and the introduction of liberal economic policies and market forces, the reduction of external tariffs with the end of import substitution, coupled with the end of the sort of tariff barriers that have made all the difference, and the gradual or, in some cases, sudden elimination of inflation. These have been major factors which have played a part in the great transformation of Latin America. Another factor has been the formation of regional trading groups, such as Mercosur, the Andean community, and the Central American/Caribbean basin grouping which have helped to develop intra-regional trade on a massive scale.
One cannot forget the coup in Chile in 1973, which replaced a catastrophic Marxist experiment. Although the coup had unfortunate side effects, it introduced a

1483
completely new economic thinking. That thinking, and that new philosophy became a model that was copied in many other countries in Latin America.
I do not intend to speak much about Chile due to the pending legal proceedings, but the decisions taken have undoubtedly damaged relationships with the most friendly country, historically, in the region. At the opening ceremonies of the current parliamentary session, for example, at which the diplomatic corps was present—as it is here—there were calls for the British and Spanish ambassadors to withdraw. That was a very sad day for our relations with Chile, which I hope we can rectify in due course.
I turn briefly to the important aspect of trade. From the beginning of the century and up to the time of the Second World War, Britain occupied a dominant position in Latin American trade, but that trade declined until 1990. Fortunately, since 1990 we have seen a reversal of that situation and things have started to increase from a very low base. That has produced quite substantial increases in our share of the market, to the extent that we now have a £3 million trade in both directions, which is encouraging, and that is growing fast.
Investment presents an even better picture. The United Kingdom is the third largest investor in Latin America after the United States and Japan, and it is the largest investor of all the European Union countries. Brazil is by far the largest country in Latin America with which we trade—it is the largest country in the continent—followed by Mexico and Argentina. It is probable that the figures for Mexico are slightly distorted because much of the trade into Mexico is channelled through United States subsidiaries of British companies, so the figures are probably higher. One should also realise that a great deal of our activity in the Latin American region is generated by what are generally known as invisibles: service industries, banking, insurance and so on. That is another factor that probably increases the impact of what we are doing.
A lot of credit for what has happened in the last decade has been due to the Latin American Trade Advisory Group (LATAG), which has been identifying priority sectors and acting as a catalyst to development. It started with mining, followed by oil and gas, automotive industries, consumer goods and now it focuses on healthcare.
The Latin American Trade Advisory Group is based at Canning House, the focal point for all our cultural and other relations with Latin America. I shall not say too much about Canning House because my noble friend Lady Hooper, currently the president of that fantastically successful and important institution will, I hope, develop that theme. She is a dynamic and energetic person, who is introducing some very good initiatives.
Despite all those good points, I believe that there is a problem about whether Her Majesty's Government take this area seriously. In 1979, when I started pressing for more visitors to the area, Conservative Ministers started going there. It was a trickle at first, but by the end of
1484
the Conservative administration there was quite a deluge and a great number of Ministers had visited the area. That was extremely encouraging.
By the same token, I believe that the present Government have started rather slowly. With their massive majority, I am hoping that that may accelerate. Latin American presidents and Ministers frequently visit the UK. Most recently we had an extremely successful visit by President Menem of Argentina, a country with which we have superlative relations now, and where trade has increased in a spectacular way since the restoration of diplomatic relations. That was followed by a reciprocal visit, earlier this year, by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.
However, it is a sad fact that only one Prime Minister in office has ever visited Latin America on a bilateral visit. John Major visited Colombia on his way to the Rio Summit in 1992. I find it deplorable that we do not take that seriously. The heads of state and the heads of government of the leading nations of Europe visit Latin America on extensive tours quite frequently. It is true that shortly the Prime Minister will visit the EU Mercosur Summit. Other people have been to summits, but that is not the same thing. I do not know why the Prime Minister's visit is not combined with visits to other countries, including a bilateral visit to Brazil. After all, Brazil is the eighth largest economy in the world and we ignore it at our peril. That is most unfortunate.
I do not have a great deal of confidence in what is going to happen at the EU-Mercosur Summit. Mercosur has been a huge success and has increased regional trade enormously. Unfortunately the negotiations between the European Union and Mercosur are not going all that well. The trouble is that it is bogged down with the European Union agricultural subsidies and that is the biggest single stumbling block. I feel that the EU-Mercosur Summit will not be much more than a great photo opportunity. But at least the Prime Minister will, for the first time, set foot in Latin America and hopefully that might stimulate him to get on with some serious visits elsewhere.
In the short time at my disposal I have tried to give a rather rapid overview, somewhat generalised and vastly oversimplified. I hope others will cover more specific aspects of the problem and I am gratified that such a splendid galaxy of speakers put their names down to speak, particularly my noble friend Lord. Walker who is going to break his duck. We are looking forward to his contribution. I am sure that everybody knows him very well so I need not say much about him. But it is a very good thing that he is now an ally in this great cause of building relations with Latin America.
It is important to remember that Latin America is a great continent with a vast amount of opportunity and huge potential, and it behoves us to take it much more seriously than we do. I hope this will happen. I beg to move for Papers.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I hope very much that this will not be the noble Viscount's valedictory address; of

1485
course, I am in the same boat as he. I propose, if I may, to take the noble Viscount's title in a rather general sense and not stick strictly to political matters as such.
I am not an expert on Latin America, certainly no rival to the noble Viscount who, in his wide-ranging speech, showed clearly that it is in Britain's interest to develop relations with all countries of Central and South America. The noble Viscount has much experience in facilitating trade between Britain and Latin America, but he knows that trade, cultural and scientific links go hand in hand. That is particularly the case, as my noble friend knows full well, when there is a thriving educational exchange programme.
Contacts and friendships developed during a stay for undergraduate or postgraduate study of a year or more are likely to endure. Many of those who take advantage of these scholarships or exchange programmes go on to have influential positions in government, business, academia or the media. And if they have had a good experience in their host country—and mostly they do—they are very likely to seek to build up trade or cultural links because they understand the other country's way of working and wish to continue the links they made.
That works in both directions—Latin American students coming to Britain or Brits studying or working in Latin America. Both cases lead to a better understanding and frequently to increased commercial links. I often wonder whether governments realise how great the long-term benefits are of such investment in human potential. All the staff I have met working for the British Council throughout the world know it; so do many working in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and certainly in DfID. But the investment that we put into our scholarship programmes does not reflect its importance. Can my noble friend give any figures for aid to Latin American countries over recent years which takes this form? We have never quite recovered from the sad decision that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, felt she was forced to take some 25 years ago, when Minister for Education in a Labour government, to increase university fees for most overseas students to their actual cost.
One of the reasons for the comparatively low level of trade between Britain and Latin America compared, for example, with southern Africa or south east Asia is of course linguistic. In all the areas that I mentioned, Britain rather than Spain was the main colonial power and we found it convenient to teach people to speak English, which most of the educated people in our former colonial territories still do. However, British explorers and engineers played a major part in opening up South America in the 18th and 19th century. I think at least some of them—like the noble Viscount—took the trouble to learn Spanish, something which more British people should do today. As the second most widely spoken language in the world it should perhaps supplant French as the first foreign language to be taught in our schools; at least it should always be available as an alternative or as an addition to French. It is so much easier and effective to learn a foreign language when one is young, as I am finding out to my cost with my attempts at Spanish.
1486
As my noble friend may be aware, the Caribbean country I have most recently visited—twice, in fact, in the past two years—is Cuba. I include that country in Latin America. We have much to gain by increasing our scientific and cultural links with that country. We may be critical of its one-party system and suppression of dissent and we should not hide our wish to see political prisoners released and a Cuban style multi-party system come into being. But it should be borne in mind that Cuba is not being paranoid in its belief that the US will use any opportunity it can to overthrow the present political and economic system in Cuba. Most observers feel, however, that the present embargo on US-Cuban trade is actually providing a pretext for tighter control of political and press activity by the government than would be the case if there were a more relaxed US-Cuban relationship. In fact the effect of the present US policy is proving precisely the converse to what was intended. Cuba has survived the end of economic support from the USSR—at a cost—and is on the road to recovery, though per capita income is still painfully low. But, as one member of the IPU delegation of which I was a part put it, "At least the poverty is spread evenly."
The tourist trade and the legalisation of the US dollar, necessary though it was, have made inroads into this social equality. And the US embargo has had some very harmful effects, not least on the health of the Cuban people, as reported in great detail in the 1997 report of the American Association for World Health. But a remarkable Cuban achievement has been that, despite a lack of sufficient food and an increase in water-borne infections because of the breakdown of water and sewerage systems, infant and maternal mortality and expectation of life have all continued to improve and are at a level comparable to some developed countries. That is a marked difference to the situation in Iraq where a somewhat similar food shortage and breakdown in sewerage and water treatment as a result of the Gulf War and the sanctions regime have resulted in widespread child malnutrition and a doubling of infant and child mortality.
These Cuban achievements may serve to underline and give an example of why it will be very fruitful to further develop the scientific and academic links with at least one Latin American country. I gave my noble friend notice that I was going to ask if she had any news about the developments on the proposed trials of the Cuban vaccine for meningitis B, the first to be developed in the world, in which St Mary's Hospital in London is collaborating with the Finlay Institute in Havana. It is a very fitting collaboration since St Mary's was home to another world first in Professor Alexander Fleming who of course discovered penicillin. That is just one example of the interesting lines of research in biotechnology in which Cuba is quite advanced. It would benefit us to collaborate with them in that.
Finally, I should like to touch on another country with great potential but one which is caught up in a cycle of violence that seems at times to be insoluble—Colombia. Britain has a particular interest in Colombia at the moment because of BP's major investment. But my information—and it has also appeared in newspapers—

1487
is that this operation has exacerbated the violence in the province where it has been operating. The position, as one might expect, is that neither the guerrillas (the FARC) nor the paramilitary groups are in favour of oil exploration or extraction on their territory without considerable compensation. Installations are liable to be attacked by one or other group, although perhaps more frequently by the guerrillas in the first place because representatives of BP did not adequately plan with the local people what they were going to do and meet their requirements. The army was called in to protect the oil operation, with the result that the closely allied paramilitaries indulged in a reign of terror in the villages supposed to be supporting the guerrillas. As a fence-mending gesture, I understand that BP has now put resources into some local communities. How well this is working and whether the installations are now left alone by the guerrillas and paramilitary groups, it would be interesting to know. Can my noble friend the Minister enlighten us on the current status of the BP operation?
A contrasting approach was apparently taken by another firm, Kelt Colombia, which is a successor to Elf Aquitaine, the French oil company. Before undertaking any operations, that firm approached local communities and went out of its way to ascertain their needs and help to construct water supply systems, introduce electricity, and build schools and clinics. As a result, the guerrillas did not attack its installations and the company did not have to call in the army nor the paramilitary which usually does the army's dirty work.
Noble Lords may be surprised that I have talked about Colombia without mentioning cocaine. Of course it is in the background all the time. The war on drugs, it seems, has not seen any reduction in supplies. As I suggested in an Unstarred Question on Colombia some two years ago, drugs certainly exacerbate the problem in Colombia, but the basic problem is the existence of a large group of peasants with little or poor quality land and a small elite group who own most of the land, and certainly the best land. I wish President Pastrana very good luck in the extremely courageous negotiations he is now conducting with the leaders of FARC. But until the land question is faced and solved I suggest that there will be no lasting peace in Colombia nor in many other parts of Latin America.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, all friends of the diverse peoples of Latin America will be grateful to my noble kinsman Viscount Montgomery of Alamein for initiating this debate, as they have been grateful in the past when he has brought to their service, and to the service of this House, his knowledge, experience, wisdom and curiosity in relation to Latin America, as well as, and not least, I should say, his great name. If it indeed be the case that this is the last occasion when the noble Viscount will introduce a debate on this subject, I think I can say that they—the peoples of Latin America—like ourselves, will be the poorer.
The most interesting occasion that I can remember in connection with the contributions of the noble Viscount to the work of this House took place during the debate
1488
on the Falklands War in 1982 when the noble Viscount made a splendidly brave speech criticising the then government's position. I did not agree with him but, of course, thinking as he did, he was entirely right to speak as forcefully and as effectively as he did. Indeed, he is similarly right to point out that in the time during which he has been interested in Latin America the countries concerned have undergone such a major change. As a matter of fact, he did not claim any responsibility as regards the changes towards democracy but, nevertheless, we noticed the two events in passing.
It is interesting to note that for all the residual anti-Americanism which continues to exist in much of Latin America, those countries have usually adopted a system of democracy echoing that in Washington—a presidential system—rather than a parliamentary system such as might have seemed more inspiring given the change to parliamentary democracy in Spain, the mother country, under the leadership of King Juan Carlos. Indeed, the selection of that presidential system as opposed to a parliamentary system could be one reason for the continuing weakness of some of those democracies about which we have been talking.
It seems to me that another weakness is the continuing love affair which still exists, despite the collapse of communism, with the idea of revolution. We find this love affair surviving in surprising places in pockets of resistance, one might say—if it is not to mix a metaphor—in many of the polities of whi'2h we are talking. Mention has been made of Colombia. It is certainly true that that fascinating and important country is cut in half by the fact that many still subscribe to that outworn idea.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, spoke about Cuba. But, as far as I could understand from his general approach, I believe that he, too, would agree that the tragedy of modern Cuba is that, for all the charm of its people and of the countryside—and, indeed, the beauty of the cities—the country is still in thrall to an exploded idea. That idea is as extinct, I would say, as the famous line of marine South American volcanoes to which Disraeli—or, perhaps I should say, the late Earl of Beaconsfield—referred with such wit and to such effect on the only other occasion when volcanoes have been mentioned in the Palace of Westminster in another place during the last century. What a tragedy it is that Cuba should still, nearly 10 years after the collapse of communism, be subordinate to such an extinct idea as Marxism/Leninism.
On the other hand, Mexico is undergoing a major and important change. I have not worked this out adequately, but I think that for the first time ever, or for the first time this century, it looks as though there is a good chance that if an opposition candidate 'wins the presidential election in the elections of the year 2000 he may be allowed into Los Pinos, the presidential palace, to take office as opposed to the official candidate of the Institutional Revolutionary Party. However, we must recognise that that Institutional Revolutionary Party, so well named, is still a formidable enterprise. It could even triumph in a fair election, thus giving one more victory to what might perhaps be described as "revolutionary traditionalism." There is another cloud

1489
over the future of Mexico; namely, that caused by the thriving United States drug market and those Mexican drug dealers who serve it effectively and for their own benefit, thereby accruing immense prosperity for themselves.
During the course of this year I expect to go to Argentina. I shall be interested to see to what extent the memory of my noble friend Lady Thatcher is looked upon. No doubt her memory will be viewed, with some degree of regret, as representing one of those who were creators of the democracy which they are now enjoying—or at least one of those who destroyed the old military government as a result of the Falklands War.
I shall also visit Chile for the first time since I visited it during the lamentable regime of President Allende. When I was there in 1970, it seemed to me that the country was on the brink of civil war with an ancient democracy, as the noble Viscount described it, being subverted by a popular front government very comparable to what existed in eastern Europe immediately after 1945; in other words, a kind of foretaste of the eastern European communist governments. Of course the coup d'état of 1973 had, as we all know well, a dark side. However, the recollection of that should not blind us to the fact that the change from the Allende regime was a benefit to Chile, the continent and perhaps the world.
I think I have time to make one final point. Latin America is frequently spoken of condescendingly in Europe and North America as a violent place. That is rather a myth. There is no continent with such a large number of individual states which has been so relatively free from war between those states as has been the case in Latin America this century. In addition many of the changes which have occurred in Latin American countries such as Brazil have occurred with remarkable serenity. Race relations are on the whole rather good, even in countries with such large black communities as Brazil and Cuba, and are perhaps better than those which exist in Anglo-Saxon America.
Finally, there are in many of these countries peoples of quite diverse origin and character who live in mutual tolerance and respect. I think for example of the 50 separate peoples who speak different languages in Mexico. They could well offer to give an effective lesson in tolerance and mutual respect to other continents, including indeed Europe itself and not only perhaps the south east portion of it.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Walker of Worcester: My Lords, it is with some fear and trepidation that I make my first speech in a debate in your Lordships' House. I speak in fear and trepidation because for 31 years in another place I increasingly admired the quality and standard of debate in this House. I feel that my beginning to contribute may start the decline of that trend. Certainly I very much welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject. I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Montgomery, as to my knowledge it is the third time he has instigated a debate on this subject in this
1490
House. I know of few people in this country who have contributed more to improving relationships between Britain and Latin America than my noble friend, who has made an enormous effort in that regard both here and in Latin America. Almost everywhere one goes in Latin America one hears gratitude and tributes paid to him for the part that he has played in that process.
It is also particularly difficult in a maiden speech to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton. I know of no other historian in the world with a greater knowledge of and impact on Latin America than the noble Lord. Those of us who are interested in Latin America have benefited greatly from reading his remarkable books on the history of various parts of that region. The reason I particularly rejoice in following the noble Lord is that I believe that in the coming decades the most important region in the world will probably be Latin America.
I remember the first time I visited this Chamber as a schoolboy aged 16. I had been invited by my Member of Parliament to attend a debate in the other place, which was sitting in this Chamber, its own Chamber having been destroyed in the war. I remember that the debate concerned Scottish affairs. On becoming a Member of the House of Commons I dreaded debates on Scottish affairs! The debate I heard then was a good one which contained a fine maiden speech made by a new Labour MP who had recently been returned on a by-election, Willie Ross, who later became a distinguished Secretary of State for Scotland. I remember the speech as he quoted many times from Robbie Burns. The English Members of this House at least will be relieved to hear that I have no intention of quoting from Robbie Burns today, partly because I know of no quotations of Robbie Burns and if I did I could not pronounce them!
I declare an interest in that I am involved in a bank and I was chairman of Kleinwort Benson—now part of Dresdner Kleinwort Benson—and we have offices in virtually every country in Latin America. We have been extremely active in the economic changes that have taken place. Therefore I have travelled there a great deal in recent years. I also travelled there as a Cabinet Minister on about five occasions. The transformation that has taken place in that region is remarkable. One of the things I regret is that in my view neither the business community nor the political community in this country recognise the dimension of the change that has taken place.
Mention has been made of Argentina. Twelve or 14 years ago Argentina was under the control of the generals. It suffered from high inflation, a declining economic performance and considerable corruption. It was making no impact on either the region or the world as a whole. In that short period of time Argentina has eradicated inflation—it has one of the lowest rates of inflation in the world—and has repaid a great volume of its debts. Argentina has stabilised its currency, has transformed its economy and has played a positive role in developments throughout the region. It now has a secure democracy. It is a tribute to what has happened in Argentina that as it approaches the presidential elections at the end of this year there is no doubt that

1491
all the political parties in Argentina are in agreement as to what the economic policy should be. The idea that that economic policy would have been acceptable 15 years ago is beyond comprehension.
In foreign policy Argentina has improved its relationships with its neighbours. It is now only on the football pitch that the relationships between Chile and Argentina are impossible. However, in terms of politics and economic policy they have worked closely together. This very week the parliaments in both Chile and Argentina have passed motions agreeing boundary changes, eliminating the last friction on the boundaries of Argentina and Chile. When I first started to travel to Argentina there were 47 border disputes, with the armies of both countries lined up on each side. There was enormous hostility. That has all been eradicated.
Chile is a remarkable country. It has been a leader in Latin America as regards economic policy. It has developed its own economy to a remarkable degree. It is now having a great impact upon the economy throughout the region. Chile has made a great number of capital investments throughout the region. A great number of top Chilean businessmen are helping other countries with their development programmes. But perhaps the most impressive factor of all has been the quality of democracy in Chile. After the virtual civil war that occurred, the military took command. Then the military handed over power to a genuine democracy. First, a Right-of-centre government took office and then a Left-of-centre government took office. The government coalition has just adopted its candidate for the coming presidential elections, someone from the Left of Chilean politics, and there will be totally democratic elections.
The Government must consider carefully the problems connected with former President Pinochet. I recognise the legal implications. I fully understand that a Home Secretary must comply with the legal aspects of this matter and must go through the legal formalities. However, at the end of the day such is the power of the Home Secretary and the Government that when those legal formalities are completed they will have to make a political decision. All I ask is that in making that political decision they listen to advice on the implications to Chilean democracy of whatever decision is made. I refer to the anxiety of those of us who love Chile and who want it to succeed in the future. We are anxious with regard to adverse trends developing in the democratic processes in Chile.
There is an excellent diplomatic corps in the entire region to which I pay tribute. Those of us who deal constantly with the British ambassadors in the various countries of the region admire immensely their tremendous dedication to their tasks. We admire their knowledge and the manner in which they and their staff wish to enhance relationships between Britain and the countries in which they serve. I also pay tribute to the diplomatic corps of the Latin American countries in London. There has been a series of remarkable ambassadors from the major countries of Latin America who work hard to improve relationships between their countries and our country. They do a great job. In
1492
considering the potential growth of Latin America and its political importance, I urge the Government to make an enormous effort to improve those relationships.
My noble friend mentioned visits by prime ministers. The present Prime Minister took a delegation to Mexico. While he was there he created a Mexican forum between the two countries, which I very much welcome. I join my noble friend in hoping that the Prime Minister will make similar visits to countries such as Brazil. We are fortunate that at this time—this is unique—in the major countries of Latin America, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and in some of the smaller countries such as Peru there are presidents of quite outstanding ability. They are working together in collaboration. It is unique to find in one region such high calibre presidents all serving at one time. It is a very good time for the British Government to get close to those presidents and exercise the greatest collaboration they can.
We must recognise that there is considerable competition between the United States and Europe so far as concerns influence in Latin America. I know that the present Commissioner for Trade Negotiations, Sir Leon Brittan, has recently devoted a great deal of his time to going to Latin America and talking to Latin American Governments. So far as concerns Mexico, it is part of NAFTA and within a free trade area of the United States. I do not believe that NAFTA will expand. The president wishes it to expand hut, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned, there is a presidential system in the United States as well as in Latin America and Congress will probably stop any extension of that free trade area. That will provide a great opportunity for Europe to establish trade agreements with Latin America which will massively increase the flow of trade between the two regions. Latin America will obviously welcome that; parts of Europe will greatly benefit from it; and the whole world will benefit. The matter should be given a great deal of attention.
The noble Lord opposite mentioned education. I could not agree with him more. Again, the reality in terms of Europe and America is that the universities of America are full of students from Latin America on scholarships encouraged by businesses. The decline. in overseas students attending the best universities in his country will have terrible long-term effects. All departments of government should concentrate on what can be done in Latin America—particularly the Department of Trade and Industry and the energy department within the Department of Trade and Industry. Latin America has enormous energy resources yet to be developed.
Above all, the Department for Education and Employment should concentrate on Latin America. If that department can think of ways in which the bright, lively young of Latin America can make their friends and enhance their education in this country, it will have enormous long-term consequences, as happens in the relationships between Latin America and the United States.
The noble Lord also mentioned speaking Spanish. It is absurd that in this country we have French as our second language and German as our third. To the horror

1493
of the French, French is a declining language world-wide. The only people concentrating on it are the French; elsewhere it is in decline. German is primarily spoken in Germany. Spain is not only a major country within the European community but Spanish is spoken by virtually the whole of Latin America and a substantial part of North America is now Spanish speaking. I have endeavoured to persuade former Cabinet colleagues of mine at the Department for Education and Employment to make Spanish the second language of this country. The incredible reason that the department gives for not doing so is that, because we have always had French and German as the main languages, we have only French and German teachers; therefore it is a static position. If one wanted to recruit 2,000 people who could teach Spanish in the next few weeks, one would have no difficulty in doing so. We should recognise in this country the importance of the Spanish language. If we did that, the younger generation and the future generations of business leaders in this country would be far more successful in the region.
Finally, I had the privilege as a Minister and as a businessman of seeing a great deal of the Far East, a great deal of North America and a great deal of Latin America. Looking at this century, I believe that the increase in prosperity of countries like ours has been because we imported the raw materials of the world and processed them; thereby we have been able to export and increase our standard of living. I do not believe that there will be the same pattern in the next millennium. I believe that there will be an ever-increasing shortage of raw materials and that it will be the producers and the providers of the raw materials who will have the economic growth. If at the same time those countries with the raw materials learn to process and manufacture them, as they are doing throughout Latin America, they will have the great ingredients of economic growth. Latin America has the raw materials, the people and an enormous potential for expansion world-wide. If we were the first country to recognise that fact in an enthusiastic way, it would be of immense benefit to this country, to Europe and to the whole of that region.
7.14 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the whole House will join me in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Walker, on his authoritative maiden speech. It is appropriate that he has chosen this debate in which to make it. Notwithstanding his accomplished career both as a Cabinet Minister and within the private sector, he brings a knowledge of South American affairs which has been recognised not least by the award of the most prestigious Chilean order of all, the Order of Bernardo O'Higgins. We all look forward to the noble Lord's next contribution to our debates.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, touched on Colombia. I had the honour of leading an investigatory parliamentary mission with members from both Westminster and the European Parliament to Colombia, including BP's producing region in Casanare. Our only criticism of BP's activities, while in no way flawed, was
1494
that they did not do enough to promote its good works. BP operates in difficult circumstances and executes its responsibilities with a greater degree of distinction.
A 40-year internal armed conflict in Colombia has escalated to intolerable levels. It has placed Colombian democracy and the state of law at risk, engendering economic, political and social disorder in a country seeking to settle this war. It is a conflict exacerbated by armed guerrillas, self-financed from the proceeds of systematic mass kidnapping of civilians in urban and rural areas and increased trafficking of illegal drugs.
Incredibly, a fragile but welcome consensus is now emerging wherein all social, economic and political circles of Colombian society, including armed groups, proclaim peace as the country's principal objective. The new Colombian Government recognise that at the heart of a formula for lasting peace is the need to balance social and economic development. Strenuous efforts are being made but it is absolutely clear that this will not be achieved without the full co-operation of the international community. Britain is perceived as being able to play a vital role in supporting the peace process, aiding the Investment Fund for Peace and helping to strengthen the Colombian Government's capacity to promote the protection of human rights for all its citizens.
I wish to say a few words about these vital ingredients. The peace process is a priority for the new Colombian Government and they are fully prepared for a negotiated solution. They have designed an integral peace policy that incorporates three phases. First, a process of negotiations with the armed groups seeking to reach agreements on the social and economic issues that give rise to the conflict, with the objective of disarmament and full resettlement into society. Secondly, the implementation of investments before, during and after the negotiations in an effort to eliminate the very economic and social factors that have led to this war. Thirdly, a political reform directed towards creating true political pluralism.
Following the creation of a more than 40,000 square kilometre tension-free zone in south-western Colombia, negotiations with the FARC guerrillas—under way since 7th January this year—have already set a common agenda and an open-ended framework for adversaries to reach decisions and adopt measures. Agreements are to be verified to maintain high levels of commitment.
The Colombian Government's policy links peace to economic development. Thus investments in depressed areas of the country are important elements to build the foundations for peace. The international community's involvement at this level would be crucial in advancing the peace process.
Despite arguments claiming that drug-trafficking has had a positive effect on the Colombian economy, there is much evidence to the contrary. Studies undertaken by the National Planning Department show that violence and criminality produced a reduction of 2 to 3 per cent in the annual rate of growth of the Colombian economy during the 1990s.
Illicit crop eradication is, at present, the key aspect in the fight against drug trafficking, although renewed by

1495
the state security forces with US Government support for spraying and manual eradication. That has met with limited success. It may be that that aspect of the strategy might be re-evaluated if it is not seen to work.
Notwithstanding that, my visits with the anti-narcotic police to the producing areas clarified the difficulty of this type of operation. The interruption of flows of coca-leaf from neighbouring countries, particularly Peru and Bolivia, has forced cartels to integrate the agricultural and industrial phases of cocaine production within Colombia; at present, Colombia has the largest cultivated area of coca leaf crops, with 79,500 hectares.
This expansion creates demographic pressures and the destruction of the social fabric of Colombian society. Illicit crops exert a serious negative impact on the establishment and strengthening of legal economic activities. Even though large economic surpluses are generated, these do not contribute to reducing the isolation of many of these regions.
Although there is an apparent positive impact on the income level of those families involved, these have negatively affected the characteristics of the market system in those areas through a fictitious increase in price levels, deteriorating the real income of rural inhabitants.
The capacity of the state to carry out justice and security is seriously affected, further undermining confidence in the commercial arena.
Fragile and rich bio-diversity, including forest reserve zones and national parks, have suffered tremendous damage, and the full environmental effects have yet to he costed. The Ministry of the Environment estimates that the cultivation of illicit crops has implied the destruction of 850,000 to 1 million hectares of Colombian forests from 1974 to 1998. The indiscriminate use of chemical products aggravates the problem.
The Colombian Government have decided to deepen the implementation of their alternative development programme with a new approach. Strategies to fight drug trafficking are directly related to the achievement of increased levels of economic and social development and to the consolidation of the peace process.
Colombian policy varies according to the origin and purpose of the crop. Commercial crops deemed to be assets of drug traffickers are to be eradicated without compensation. In the case of subsistence crops resulting from poverty and the absence of economically viable alternatives, the government, through the alternative development programme, will offer production substitutes—vital in the areas where 61.4 per cent of the population have unsatisfied basic needs.
The government will rely increasingly, and literally, on carrots rather than sticks to integrate subsistence growers into the economic and social system. Success will, however, depend critically on the capacity of the government and the international community to offer competitive options for the generation of incomes that will encourage the elimination of those crop productions.
1496
The programme will be supported by an investment fund for peace which will encourage society to "put its money where its mouth is" by redirecting capital flows away from such areas as military expenditure. to more productive activities and funding expenses for the peace effort, including the issuance of peace bonds.
Colombia is infamously linked to violent acts of guerrilla and self-defence groups against the civilian population, which sabotage and undermine state activities and disturb public order. A state under constant threat from insurgent armed groups that boast renewed resources, extorted from the civilian population and the proceeds of drug dealing, faces enormous difficulties in guaranteeing the full enforcement of human rights in its territory. Mechanisms must therefore be sought to bring about humanitarian agreements to reduce the suffering of civilians.
Commendably, in addition to undertaking to observe all the provisions of international humanitarian law, the Colombian Government are seeking their full implementation by all players in the armed conflict. Moreover, the government have signed the International Criminal Court statute.
Logistic and financial support for state bodies engaged in investigating and punishing human rights violations is being improved: a special committee to further investigations into human rights vicilations, composed of the Vice-President, Interior Minister, Prosecutor General and Attorney General, has been established.
The government intend to continue their policy of strengthening and updating the Armed Forces by raising efficiency standards, and introducing stricter observance of human rights and international humanitarian law. Reforms of the military criminal justice system in order to combat and punish infringements of human rights and international humanitarian law by state agents and prevent any connections with private armed justice groups are proceeding.
Colombia maintains a policy of openness that keeps international bodies and human rights organisations abreast of developments on such issues. 'The government have therefore requested an extension for a further year of the Colombian Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Last month, that office entered into a technical co-operation agreement with the presidential human rights counsellor with a view to raising the profile and supporting the activities of the UN office.
Altogether, it is an ambitious programme, calling for vision, courage and commitment from the international community and all law-abiding Colombians. No effort must be spared in ensuring that the scourge of illicit drug production is eradicated in Colombia and that long-awaited peace prevails.
It would be inappropriate to conclude without congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, on his support of all matters Latin American, not least by initiating this important debate.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I, too, am glad to be able to join in this debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Montgomery for yet again giving us the opportunity to emphasise the significance and importance of our relationship with all the countries of Latin America, and to update ourselves on political developments in the region.
After the many years that he has spent working on the ground in Latin America, my noble friend has put his knowledge and expertise to considerable good use as chairman and president of Canning House, as chairman of the Latin American Trade Advisory Group, and in various capacities in bilateral societies and parliamentary all-party groups. Moreover, he has always tackled the issues with such infectious enthusiasm that he draws others into the arena. I sincerely hope that this will not be the last opportunity that he will have in this House to initiate a debate on this topic.
My noble friend pre-empted me by declaring my interest as president of the Hispanic and Luso Brazilian Council, better known as Canning House. Perhaps I may say a few words about Canning House and its work. It is a membership based, non-political, non-profit-making organisation. It was founded in 1943 to develop understanding between ourselves, Spain, Portugal and the Latin American countries. It acts as a forum for heads of state, Ministers, politicians, diplomats, businessmen, academics, artists and students in order to promote links between the United Kingdom, Europe and Latin America. We also have a splendid library which is open to the public and is used by many generations of students and others who are interested in the region. To achieve our objectives, we organise conferences, seminars, round table discussions, lectures and other cultural and educational events. Perhaps I may use this opportunity to advertise the fact that we are holding our annual seminar for parliamentarians two weeks today, on 23rd June. I hope that many noble Lords will attend that event.
Also, as one of our recent developments, the council realised that it was important to raise its overseas profile. As the Minister may be aware, we have held conferences in Brazil and Mexico, and the latest, this year, in Buenos Aires. The theme has always been the European Union and Latin America, whether a regional organisation or on a bilateral basis. It is important that the United Kingdom takes a strong lead in the European context in this field. Canning House is playing its part. We are also forming an international council. I have just returned from two days in Spain meeting like-minded organisations with a view to working with them, developing the theme of providing a bridge between Europe and Latin America from Spain in the south and from the United Kingdom in northern Europe. We should be proud of ourselves for taking the many initiatives that we have. I am happy that Canning House is often acknowledged not only in this country but also in others as a unique institution which is important in all those areas.
In the context of the debate and some of the remarks made, I point out that in terms of future elections, last year with the elections in Venezuela we were able to
1498
host meetings for three of the candidates. We therefore had a pre-election knowledge of President Chavez and his views. This year we hope that, in relation to the Argentine elections, the two front-running candidates, Duhalde and Fernando de la Rua, will come over and speak to members of Canning House and, we hope, to a wider audience.
On a more general note, whenever we talk about Latin American countries we recite the impressive changes that have taken place in recent years in their economies and the statistics about trade and investment opportunities. Reference has already been made to them. But most experts and commentators explaining the reasons for a third of total world investment in emerging markets going to Latin America cite as of prime importance the democratisation of all those countries. Democratisation means not just elected governments and parliaments but freedom of speech, openness and transparency of government, accountability and action on human rights. Any of the activities to which I referred that we undertake in Canning House and other contexts and all the increasing interest in parliamentary contacts through the IPU visits are important. They underline the progress that has been made and the continuance of the democratic process in all those countries.
Of course, as in our own country, there is always room for improvement. Perhaps I may cite two areas where there could be improvement and development. One is the need in some countries to change their out-of-date legal and judicial structures. That is acknowledged by the countries themselves and recent initiatives by the British Council and ourselves in Canning House in that respect have been welcomed.
Another change is the development of regional groups in Latin America. Perhaps the one with which we are most familiar is the southern cone grouping of the Mercosur countries—Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay. Those are essentially trade groupings, but it is interesting on the political side that, with the recent unhappy events in Paraguay, the fact that Paraguay is a member of Mercosur and that the other countries of Mercosur insisted on the democratic process being retained there has been of considerable importance.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and my noble friend Lord Walker, in his excellent maiden speech. They emphasised the importance of educational contact and more teaching of Spanish and Portuguese. Two interesting developments are evidence that there is more contact and more going on in these fields. There is the GAP programme, the pre-university year programme. Last year, in Ecuador alone, one of the smaller of the Latin American countries, there were about 31 or 32 British students doing the GAP year. That is replicated throughout Latin America.
There are also all the university language courses with students doing the overseas year in Latin American countries. I came across the fact that in this country, in terms of Latin American students, we have from Mexico alone 800 students, most doing post-graduate work. So there is an enormous amount of contact and at Canning House we are focusing on it as an area for further development.

1499
I wish to bring into this all-too-short opportunity to speak a reference to the recent talks in London between our Foreign Minister, the Argentine Foreign Minister, Guido di Tella, and four councillors from the Falkland Islands. We all welcome it as a step in the right direction. Sovereignty was not on the agenda, as we all know, but I understand that a number of areas of common interest such as measures to combat illegal fishing, hydrocarbons and mine clearance were discussed. Issues such as access to the islands by Argentine passport holders were also discussed. I urge the Government to continue the initiative and conciliation process. We hope that such contact will continue so that areas of co-operation for mutual benefit will develop and the islanders and the Argentines can learn to live together as neighbours in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
Finally, I wish to ask the noble Baroness two questions. Many people, including the Foreign Office Ministers, welcome parliamentary pressures, so I make no apology for supporting my noble friend Lord Montgomery in his comments about a prime ministerial bilateral visit. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Walker that the arrangements for Mexico were made when President Zedillo was over here on his official visit last year. I emphasise that we welcome very much the important presidential visits that took place last year with Presidents Fujitmori from Peru, Zedillo from Mexico and Menem from Argentina. I equally emphasise as important that when visiting ministers are over here they have the opportunity to meet for however short a time with the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister. That is important.
Our ambassadors in Latin America do a terrific job. May we put pressure on the Government to confirm that they will keep them all in post?
7.36 p.m
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, and thank him for introducing this debate. We are all aware of his persistence in bringing the issues of Latin America to your Lordships' attention and we always learn a great deal from him.
I know that the debate calls attention to the political situation, but I would like briefly to address some of the economic issues because the two are inseparable. I begin by saying that prospects are still good for stronger regional growth in the longer term, largely due to the recent reforms that have taken place in the region. Productivity and growth turned positive in the 1990s as opposed to the declines during the 1970s and 1980s. Privatisations, particularly in the telecommunications and transport sectors in the early 1990s, very much helped that trend. Labour market reforms have been slow, due mainly to political sensitivities, but nevertheless even in that area some significant progress is being made. Foreign direct investment is now producing capacity expansion and not just the transfer of asset ownership, as was the case in the early 1990s. When the current downturn in the markets eases, foreign direct investment should rise substantially again.
1500
Another point which is important is that as pension reform takes hold in more countries of the region, over the next five years there are expectations that domestic savings will rise as well. That is crucially important for the region, since domestic savings rates need to rise if the region is to reduce its reliance on external financing for growth.
However, at the same time we must recognise that many Latin American countries face a difficult transition to sustain growth and further social development. Many of them remain highly indebted or heavily dependent on commodity exports and are therefore highly vulnerable to interest rates in terms of trade shocks. Access to international capital has become more difficult in the current environment, and elections in several countries of the region have increased and are increasing nervousness about a slippage in fiscal policy at a time when the economies must still rely heavily on private capital flows to re-finance existing debt.
On balance though, the growth potential of many countries in the region has improved with better public and private management, suggesting, as has recently been mentioned by the World Bank, a growth potential in per capita incomes averaging about 2.2 per cent. over the next 10 years. That is a full percentage point better than was achieved over the past 10 years.
However, there are risks. I need hardly say that what happens outside the region is crucial. For example, when the East Asian crisis hit it had little immediate effect on the region, but with the spread of the crisis to Russia in August 1998 investors started to pull their money out of all the emerging markets. That had a particularly severe effect on Latin America. That was not the fault of Latin America. There have also been natural disasters. El Niño in early 1998 and Hurricane Mitch in November brought unexpected problems. Any forecast of economic growth in the region must be very heavily hedged.
But the unexpected can sometimes be positive. Brazil pulled out of recession in the first quarter of this year as the economy continued to confound expectations about the pace of recovery from the January currency crisis which brought a devaluation and a very sharp rise in interest rates. This means that Latin America's largest economy, which has suffered two successive quarters of declining GDP, has now technically come out of recession. Nobody thought that it would happen so soon. The January devaluation convinced many economists that there would be a severe recession this year and perhaps a much dreaded return to high inflation. But here again over-confidence would be misplaced. Investors are currently worrying about the likelihood of increased interest rates in the United States and the difficult economic situation in Argentina. Domestically, a great deal in Brazil will depend on whether the Government can strictly enforce the proposed fiscal responsibility law to restrain municipal and state government spending.
What happens in Brazil matters enormously to the rest of Latin America, but what happens in Argentina also matters a great deal. New curbs on provincial government spending, a commitment to a new fiscal convertibility law to place limits on deficits and

1501
clarification of the issue of currency convertibility will help enormously. Argentina and Brazil are key members of Mercosur, the embryonic customs union linking those two countries with Paraguay and Uruguay. Mercosur has been under a great deal of stress recently because of problems in Brazil and Argentina. While there has been much progress in removing tariffs from intra-group trade, there has been too little progress on non-tariff barriers, even less progress towards a common external tariff, and little sign of any movement towards common macro-economic targets, which will be very important if Mercosur is to be more than just a NAFTA-style free trade area and become a real customs unions like the EU, which was the intention of its founders.
That said, the governments of Brazil and Argentina have invested far too much political capital in the agreement to allow it to collapse. Let us not forget that Chile and Bolivia are associates and Venezuela has ambitions to become a member. There is a great deal of political capital tied up in Mercosur and therefore I do not believe that they will allow it to collapse. It is therefore deeply worrying that the European Union is currently treating Mercosur in such a cavalier fashion. The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, have made reference to this. It was, after all, the European Union Commission, admittedly under very strong but understandable pressure from Spain, which proposed late last year a comprehensive free trade agreement with Mercosur. The two trade blocs were expected to start formal negotiations on a trade deal at the 28th to 29th June Latin American-EU Summit in Rio de Janeiro which is just upon us. That summit brings together the heads of state of 22 Latin American and 15 European countries.
But at the EU's General Affairs Council last week an eleventh hour effort to overcome internal disagreements on a common EU position to take to the summit was not even attempted. It is true that Kosovo was very high on the agenda at that meeting, but the EU-Mercosur issue was simply swept off the agenda. Some European Union countries such as France. Ireland and, to a certain extent, Italy oppose the idea of a trade agreement because they—in particular France—fear the opening up of Europe's farm markets to Latin American products. But the exclusion of agriculture makes a deal much less attractive to Mercosur countries and could only fall foul of WTO regulations.
A compromise is still being worked out in the EU under which talks may start late in 2000 on relatively easy issues, such as non-tariff barriers and trade in services, while the big issues, such as tariffs in agriculture, will be delayed until the WTO millennium round is well under way, or even until the date that it is completed some time in 2003. This really is not good enough. If the World Trade Organisation round resulted in the EU opening its doors to agricultural products, it would help solve a major problem for the Mercosur countries, but not until 2003. In any case there is no guarantee of that.
In the meantime, the European Union will go empty-handed to Rio, and Mercosur countries may well be tempted in their frustration to turn northwards to
1502
NAFTA. As was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Walker, in his remarkable maiden speech, if that happens perhaps they will in any case come up against a brick wall in the form of the United States Congress. What a terrible lost opportunity for Europe. Latin America deserves very much better than this from Europe, and in the interests of Europe and Latin America Europe must deliver.
7.46 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, it is at this stage of the debate that I begin to regret putting down my name on the list of speakers. The speeches have been so learned and knowledgeable that I cannot begin to match them. I do not have the knowledge of economics or politics to do so. Nevertheless, I am hugely grateful to the noble Viscount for tabling this debate. I look at the whole South American scene in a different way. In spite of my lack of knowledge of economics—I have a passing acquaintanceship with it which I would not dare to air before the noble Lord, Lord Walker—I married a woman who carries an Argentine as well as a British passport. That gives me a completely different insight into South American affairs.
My wife has a large family of her own that stretches from the Paraguayan border down to Carmen de Patagones, all through the province of Chubut in Patagonia, Bariloche, San Martin de los Andes and also into Chile. Some of them, grandchildren, are English; some are Chilean, but most of them are Argentine. They provide a wonderful network of information as to what people in those countries feel at that level rather than at the high level of economics and guessing what is likely to happen to the Mercosur, America or whatever.
Apart from that, there is no other country that I have visited except Paraguay. I start with a word about that. Reference has been made to democracy. It is absolutely splendid that democracy has, so to speak. come to South America. Some English people do not realise that it is not precisely the same kind of democracy as we have here, not just because it is presidential rather than parliamentary but because of the nature of the people. That is the whole fun of it—or that is how I look at it.
Some years ago, I had the pleasure of entertaining to lunch President Wasmosy of Paraguay and the whole of his Cabinet. They had come over en bloc on a business visit and they wanted to see fish farming, which I could show them. The noble Baroness was there. I remember her telling me, which I did not know, that Wasmosy was the first pluralistically, democratically elected president of Paraguay ever since the conquistadores. It is, therefore, not just fragile; on occasions, it is quite new.
The noble Baroness referred to "a rather messy affair". Indeed it was. The vice-president had just been shot, a calculated act. I know this because an ex-ambassador to the Court of St. James was staying with me two nights ago and I learnt that they have apparently caught the fellow who fired the bullet. Cars were closing in, bodyguards were being avoided, and so on. They do not yet know who was behind it. It was miserable. However, one has to be a little cautious with

1503
some of those countries about how long democracy will last. I am sure that it will strengthen with the years, but it is still quite new.
Perhaps I can, so to speak, go southwards to the Argentine, a country in which I worked in a very lowly manner from 1948 until about 1950. I fell in love with the country and the people and I still think that it is a most wonderful place. Then, most unhappily, the war began. My wife and I found ourselves in a ridiculous position. I had a godchild in the Welsh Guards who avoided being burnt on "The Galahad" but who might well have come face to face in war with her nephews. For us, this was an extraordinarily unhappy period. We did not know what was going to happen next. Then the war was over. It is arguable that the main question was never precisely resolved.
The noble Viscount then got together with friends on both sides of the Atlantic, and also with an American friend of great talent who lived in Buenos Aires and England most of his life, and formed—I think I am right on the title—the ABC, the Argentine-British Conferences. These were designed to follow the konigswinter conferences after the German war. Groups of important people from each country—about 16 strong, two chairmen, no communiqué at the end, no press, say what you like—got together about every two years, first of all in the Argentine and later in England. We lived together—I was there twice or three times—either in an hotel or an Oxford College, we had breakfast, lunch and dinner together, and people of importance got to know each other.
I truly believe that it is all very well to have matters settled on a high political basis, but it is important to get a start with people both knowing each other and suddenly realising that what one called a foreigner was, after all, a very nice fellow who you could get on well with; it worked both ways. The people who organised it should be congratulated.
I mention this particularly because I feel that it would be valuable if it were kept going. I believe that the Königswinter conferences went on for a long time. I do not know whether they still go on. Not only did they help the whole political process, which ended very happily with the Prince of Wales going to Buenos Aires and President Menhem coming to this country for a highly successful visit, but they cannot do any harm if they are carried on a little further still.
I must return to the family network in Chile, who are very unhappy indeed. The telephone rang almost straight away to say, "It is no good trying to fly a Union Jack"—I shall not say in which town it was, but it was a big town—"because they have all been burnt". Perpetually, there seemed to be a total lack of understanding, not just in Chile but perhaps on my part as well, of how this matter is progressing.
Some of the newspapers said the other day that the appeals might go on for years. I do not understand the law any more than I understand economics. The law obviously has to be obeyed, but I state quite firmly that as far as I am concerned, and as far as the people in Chile who I know are concerned, the General should be allowed to go home. Otherwise, I fear that we will lose
1504
a very good friend. In the Argentine, we have a very good friend now. Chile was always a good friend. That has been lost; trade has been lost; the sale of two destroyers has been lost. Chileans have telephoned me to say that life is going to be very difficult for the Brits in Chile. One knows one or two who work there and who rely on work there.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness in her reply will be able to give us some sort of reassurance that this matter is not going to go on and on, until possibly the General becomes ill, or may even die, and this would cause untold trouble.
My time is up. I shall end, before the figure 11 comes up on the clock, by saying a quick word about the environment. The Argentine east coast and the Chilean fisheries are the only fisheries in the world which have not been beaten to death. Please let us ensure that they stay that way.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I wish to concentrate on one of the smaller countries in Latin America, namely Uruguay. Before doing so, I join in the tributes to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery. He said that he had spent 23 years in this House. I know that he has actually spent 40 years promoting better relationships between the United Kingdom and Latin America. He said that this may be his valedictory address. I point out to him that nine of the 13 speakers in tonight's debate are in the same boat as he is, and I hope that it is not a valedictory address for any of us!
With regard to bilateral relations between the United Kingdom and Uruguay, they have a long history which goes back to the origins of Uruguay's independence from Spanish rule at the beginning of the 19th century. A treaty of trade and friendship between the two nations was signed in 1815. I believe I am right in saying that there has since then been a mutually beneficial relationship which has grown stronger over the years.
Today, Uruguay plays an important role in Mercosur, of which we have heard a lot this evening, it being the seat of the secretariat of this agreement, as well as its geographic centre, offering its financial and brokerage expertise to its partners in Mercosur and to third countries wishing to use its developed telecommunications and infrastructure.
I want to talk mainly about bilateral relationships and particularly about trade and investment, scientific and technical co-operation and cultural co-operation. Dealing first with trade and investment, Uruguay has undergone a huge process of industrial restructuring so as to adapt to the new trade environment created by Mercosur. The United Kingdom has played and can continue to play an important part in this process, not just as a provider of capital goods but as a direct investor in industry in Uruguay. British firms such as British Gas and Shell, to mention two examples, have either started new businesses or expanded existing ones in Uruguay as a result of the privatisation of the public utilities, a point that was briefly referred to by noble friend Lord Grenfell. But we have competitors in Uruguay, The Americans, the French and the Germans are also investing ever more in Uruguay.

1505
Uruguay has seen a healthy increase in its GDP, with a 3 per cent average for the past 10 years, and it has also seen a significant reduction in its inflation rate. Uruguay, per capita, is now the second most successful country in Latin America. It is second only to Argentina. British exporters have played their part in creating this success and have benefited from it. However, there is great room for improvement, particularly in the areas of mining, agri-business and tourism. There are tremendous tax advantages to investing in Uruguay. There are no Customs duties or VAT and there is no income tax.
The second issue to which I wish to refer briefly is scientific and technical co-operation. Uruguay is an important exporter of beef, wool, leather and dairy products. There is ample room for co-operation in this field through direct bilateral talks and particularly between our scientific institutions. The Royal Agricultural Society has an ongoing relationship with the State University of Uruguay and I hope that they will be able to share their knowledge on animal health, breeding and genetics. That could be a great area of co-operation for years to come. In addition, Uruguay is also a consultative party to the Antarctic Treaty and has two permanent installations there currently developing scientific and technological programmes in the region. Britain and Uruguay are already co-operating in logistics and fishing under that framework. That relationship is mutually beneficial. The British Antarctic Survey and the relevant Uruguay national authority could co-operate further in the scientific and technological fields.
On a slightly more negative note, perhaps I may refer to cultural co-operation. My noble friend Lord Rea referred to the importance of the British Council. I have to report to the House that the British Council office in Montevideo was closed a number of years ago, which is regrettable. That situation is rather awkwardly referred to by the Uruguayans. They do not understand why it has happened and they certainly think that there is a strong case for reopening the British Council office, particularly when Uruguay has one of the highest percentages of population which speaks English as a second language in Latin America. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say something about the prospect of reopening the British Council office in Uruguay.
In opening my contribution to the debate, I referred to the long history of relations between this country and Uruguay. I have to declare a personal interest because one of my ancestors, John Ponsonby, was a founder of Uruguay. Indeed, he is sometimes referred to as the "midwife" of Uruguay. The truth of the matter is that he shared a girlfriend with the Prince Regent at the time and was sent there by the Foreign Office. What happened is that the Prince Regent got the girl and Uruguay got its independence. I am very pleased about that and I am particularly pleased because the Uruguay authorities honoured my ancestor in a number of ways. I am pleased and proud that they thought fit to do so.
8.4 p.m.
The Earl of Dundonald: My Lords, I, too, give my thanks to my noble friend for introducing this timely debate. We all know what a valuable contribution he has made to relations between this country and Latin America.
I should like to address my remarks to the country of Chile. This country occupies a very special part in my family's history. Indeed it is precisely because of this history that I have the privilege to be Chile's Honorary Consul in Scotland.
The Royal Navy owes a great deal of its current, although temporarily strained, relationship with Chile's navy to my ancestor, Thomas Cochrane, later the tenth Earl of Dundonald. In 1818 Chile sought its independence from the yoke of Spain, but it could not dislodge Spanish naval power. My ancestor answered the call, went to Chile at the invitation of Bernado O'Higgins and proceeded to kick Spanish and Portuguese sea power out of Chile, Peru and Brazil. He was not alone; there were many other British answering the call to establish the fledgling democracies of this great continent.
It is interesting to note that the British government of the day passed the Foreign Enlistment Act to prevent men like my ancestor from helping these fledgling democracies. Britain liked to interfere in other countries' development as much then as it does now. The only difference is that the tools and tone have changed considerably.
My ancestor's influence in the Chilean navy continues to this day. Every year on Chilean Navy Day the ambassador and the naval attach lay a wreath on his grave in Westminster Abbey. The First Sea Lord of the British Admiralty is normally in attendance.
The Chileans, as a result of early and continued British influence, have a very great regard for both the traditions and our sense of fairness in this country. Chile has as a result been a good and loyal friend to Britain and has had, as a result, a far less troubled political history than some of its neighbours. Chile continues to maintain strong political and economic links with Britain. Many British businesses continue to have a strong presence in the country and in the course of the past 10 years UK plc has invested heavily, reaping considerable returns from the fast growing but stable economy.
I have always had a close relationship with a number of Chilean people. I had a Chilean godfather, the late Victor Santa Cruz, who was ambassador in London in the 1960s. One of my father's closest friends, the late Cran Kendrick, was the Honorary British Consul in Valpariaso for more than 20 years. He used to visit us in the UK regularly. His daughter was a regular visitor to our home throughout my childhood and I have a number of close Chilean friends.
During the Allende presidency I remember well the stories of the armed gangs roaming the streets of the outlying areas of Santiago and businesses and farms being expropriated by the government—in short, government-inspired and supported anarchy. The Allende presidency had lost all control over the country

1507
it was supposed to govern. One could more mischievously suggest, and many political historians have already done so, that it was the presidency itself promoting the armed lawlessness. It is no wonder then that a desperate parliament towards the end of that ill-fated presidency invited the military to take control of the country in order to rid the country of a state of near revolution. They had of course underestimated the resolve of one member of that junta, General Pinochet. They had thought that the junta, having cleared the near anarchy from the streets of the capital, would simply hand back power to the parliament. The rest, as they say, is history. Pinochet consolidated his position and became dictator.
I wonder how we would react to a similar threat to this country—we who sit on comfortable red Benches in the oldest democratic parliament in the world. If we were faced with near revolution on the streets of our cities, would we call in the army to sort it out? I do not expect an answer to that question. I just want all of us to understand the political environment that catapulted General Pinochet to become dictator of his own country.
What the junta did is known to all. It is well documented. Few noble Lords present tonight would seek to justify some of the brutal excesses in the early years of that regime. But the junta did rescue the country from the very brink of political and economic disaster. None of us can deny that achievement. Some people will of course argue that the cost was far too high. But who could tell the cost that might have befallen Chile if Allende had remained?
Pinochet was eventually persuaded by all political parties to hand power back to Parliament and have full democracy restored. There were strings attached but, importantly, they were fully understood and accepted. Moreover, the judiciary accepted them. A plebiscite returned a new president. Pinochet, who had polled more than 40 per cent of the popular vote—more than most British Prime Ministers succeed in doing in their lifetime—and handed power over to his successor. This was a story with a happy ending. A compromise certainly: but Chile was once again on her democratic way.
The relationship between the UK and Chile at government, social and economic levels once again flourished; and relations were more than normalised. Then suddenly a wildcard magistrate in Spain thinks he can go for gold. He applies to the UK for extradition of the general. He is a magistrate in the very country that Chile fought to remove in 1818; the very country which fought a bloody civil war of her own; the very country that has only just returned to normalised democracy and might indeed have sunk once again into a dictatorship had not its newly installed king intervened personally. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
We must hope that our morally intoned Home Secretary properly took, and continues to take, into account all issues—this very same Home Secretary who as a young impressionable man travelled to Chile to meet the man who single handedly almost took his country over the brink: President Allende. The right and
1508
only decision for this Home Secretary is to send the General back to his country to face whatever music his fellow countrymen wish to play.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, before this matter is allowed to go uncorrected and unchallenged into Hansard, the noble Earl said that the Home Secretary had gone to Chile in order to meet, he implied, President Allende. The noble Earl would be well advised to think carefully about that. I understand that that has been completely denied. I do not want to get into this issue, but I think that the noble Earl should withdraw what he has just said about the Home Secretary.
The Earl of Dundonald: My Lords, I withdraw that comment. All I say is that I understand that a photograph was taken of the Home Secretary meeting the president on his visit. If that is not the case, I certainly withdraw the remark.
What right have the Home Secretary and this Government to dictate what should happen to a former head of state in another sovereign country? What right has the Home Secretary to interfere with the settled will of the Chilean people? The attitude of the Government is somewhat disturbing.
The Chilean people have been slighted. Their new democracy seems robust but it is being put under unnecessary pressure. We are holding a former head of state against his will: the very same head of state who less than 10 years ago secured more than 40 per cent of the vote. If the Home Secretary and this Government think that this action is not damaging and destabilising to the democracy of Chile, then they live in a different world. Relations between the two countries have been put under unnecessary strain. The Chileans think of us as great friends. Why have we slighted this very good friend of ours?
The Minister must persuade the Home Secretary. She must say, "Don't demean the settled will of the Chilean people with the judicial argument". The buck stops with this Government and nowhere else. They have the ability, I hope very soon, to restore relations with this wonderful country, a country that has few equals as to its claims to friendship with Britain. They have the ability to pour the metaphorical oil on troubled political waters in Chile.
I challenge this Government to pick up the gauntlet, send Pinochet back to his country, and stop interfering in the fundamental democratic foundations of another sovereign state. It is never too late to have a change of heart. The Chilean people will thank this Government for it from the bottom of their heart.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I pay warm tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, for the assiduity and competence with which he has always raised Latin American matters in this House. In the early days we did not always see eye to eye, in particular on the question of Argentina after 1976 when I had been there as an Amnesty representative to look at what the

1509
generals were doing. But now things have been transformed. Perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount that if we have a different electoral system, when the tumbrels begin to roll I shall certainly vote for his retention as one of the 91; and I hope that his colleagues will have the sense to do so.
I also warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walker, on his maiden speech. I was not surprised to hear him say that he was rising with some trepidation in a field of such distinguished speakers. But he need not have worried. He matched the other contributions to this debate, excellent though they have all been, and I hope that we shall hear many times in the future from the noble Lord, Lord Walker, both on Latin America and on the many other issues on which he spoke with such great distinction in another place.
Noble Lords have said, I think to a man, that there has been a great transformation in the Latin American region from the military systems which operated in so many of the countries when the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, first entered this House, to the almost universally democratic form of government that we see today. The noble Viscount mentioned that even Cuba claims to have a democratic system. I noted that at the OAS meeting that has just taken place, a unanimous resolution was passed saying that Cuba should be admitted to the OAS. I think that we are all getting a little fed up with the American attitude to Cuba which smacks so much of the Cold War in the 1960s. Perhaps it does not have the perfect democracy that we should like to see it enjoying, but we should do everything possible to promote the democratic system in Cuba. It is absurd for the Americans to bear such a grudge against one country which can do them no harm whatever.
Several noble Lords mentioned the EU Mercosur Summit and the dangers of a difficult situation because of what has just happened in Cologne. I agreed with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said on that. We embarked on a project to have free trade and economic co-operation between our two regions. That was supposed to begin at the summit at the end of this month. Then, because of agricultural concerns, the proposal was watered down. The Germans produced a compromise in which this was not to begin until December 2000. At the last minute the whole phrase was struck out. We now have nothing to go on. As the noble Lord said, there is a danger that the Rio Summit will be a damp squib and that the relations between the European Union and the Mercosur states will suffer a serious setback. I do not know whether anything can be done at this late stage to rescue that; probably not, although the noble Lord believes that we could begin to consider how we can resuscitate these negotiations on the improved trade between our two regions.
Several noble Lords mentioned our relations with Argentina. The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, said that President Menem's visit to the UK at the end of October 1998 was an outstanding success, which indeed it was, and a significant milestone in the relationships between our two countries which have proved the success of the notion of the sovereignty umbrella under
1510
which it was agreed that we would pursue normalisation without prejudice to any remaining differences on the Falklands.
The fact is that Argentina is now our second largest trading partner, and that we have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said, excellent co-operation on a number of issues other than trade, including UN peacekeeping, the fight against drug trafficking, and so on. We have in Argentina a partner which is a stable democracy, heading for closely fought presidential elections in October between the ruling Peronists and the opposition Alianza coalition. As has been said, whoever wins, there will be no sharp change of direction as the opposition candidate, Fernando de la Rua, has pledged to maintain parity of the peso with the dollar.
Mention was made by the noble Lord, Lord Walker, of the wonderful treaty which has been signed between Argentina and Chile which ends more than a century of border conflicts between the two neighbours, which must be good for regional stability and expansion of bilateral projects such as oil and gas pipelines, linking electricity supplies and mutual investment, in which British firms can participate. Even on the Falklands, as has been said, there is good news, with talks aimed at admitting Argentine visitors to the islands and the establishment of an air route between Port Stanley and the mainland. La Nacion reports that Foreign Minister Guido di Tella is optimistic about the next round which is due to be held next month in New York, and it would be useful if the Minister could tell the House when she winds up what points still have to be resolved at that meeting.
Chile is another success story, which has been mentioned by several of your Lordships, since its return to democracy in 1990 and it is set to continue on the same path with the change of presidency next March when the ruling centre-left coalition candidate, Ricardo Lagos, will almost certainly continue where Eduardo Frei leaves off.
I beg to differ with the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald. I think our relations with Chile are not irreparably damaged by the legal proceedings against the former dictator Pinochet. I think those proceedings are widely welcomed by many people in Chile and certainly they are by the Chilean exile community. Perhaps we speak to different groups of Chileans. When one looks at how the matter is reported in the Chilean press, there is not really a case for the picture of gloom and despondency about our relations which the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald painted a few minutes ago.
Like the Minister. I do not want to go into the case against Pinochet, but I feel I have to mention that it has far wider implications than just our relationship with Chile because it has sent a message to would-be dictators everywhere that, under the new regime of universal jurisdiction for torture, the perpetrators are answerable before courts all over the world, and that heads of state have no immunity. At the EU-Latin America Summit we should invite the states of Latin America to join us in ratifying the statute of the International Criminal Court, which covers an even wider range of offences and specifically provides that

1511
heads of state are subject to the court's jurisdiction. Several of the states of Latin America have already signed the convention and I hope that, as a result of the meeting in Rio, we can move forward—Latin Americans and Europeans jointly—towards early ratification.
In the few minutes that are left to me I want to say something about the situation in Colombia which was dealt with very skilfully by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. The US Drug Enforcement Agency says that Colombia tops the world in the sense that 55 references are made to Colombia in its annual report. It is also the state with the highest level of internal armed conflict in the region, with not one but two separate armed opposition groups and also the paramilitaries, which are headed by a Mr Carlos Castatio who is deeply involved in the drugs trade himself.
President Pastrana is committed officially to severing the links between the paramilitaries and the army, but he has not made any discernible progress in that direction. Those people have enormous power in Colombia because of the sums of money in which they deal but, to give you one indication of the scale of the operations, in one bust against the Galeano drug empire last year, 5,000 kilograms of cocaine were destroyed at a single laboratory, one of several belonging to this organisation. The traffickers also own huge amounts of land, including parcels in no less than 40 per cent of the country's municipalities. Clearly it is in our interests that President Pastrana should succeed in eliminating the cocaine mafias, as well as cutting the connection between the army and the paramilitaries.
In conclusion, I ask the noble Baroness what assistance we are going to give to Colombia in this war against the paramilitaries, the guerrillas and the drug mafia who are so closely in league together and who are bidding fair to destroy Colombia as an entity.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, before I entered another place as a rather nervous young man in my twenties I had the good fortune to learn a great deal about British political life from my noble friend Lord Walker. Possibly unwittingly, he was instrumental in increasing my confidence to a level commensurate with completing a candidate's application form to Conservative Central Office. I have never ceased to respect my noble friend for his beliefs, nor have I been deflected from my admiration for his contribution. It is a personal privilege from this Bench to be able to pay tribute to him on his maiden speech here, which is somewhat embarrassing given what I have just said about his contribution towards my political career and, most importantly, from a personal perspective to thank him very much indeed.
I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Montgomery on securing this important debate on political developments in Latin America. I focus my comments on the outstanding contribution he has made over the years. I am sure that there is not the remotest possibility that my noble friend will not emerge victorious should he decide, as I hope he will, to offer his candidature in the elections for
1512
representative hereditary Peers should the relevant government legislation be enacted, because his expertise on Latin America is second to none and the Conservative Party and indeed the House would be significantly the poorer for his absence.
I agree with my noble friend that it is a matter of deep regret that in Latin America there is a perception, fed by infrequent ministerial visits, remarkably few speeches by Foreign Office Ministers and even fewer debates in this House and another place, that the present Government take little interest in Latin America. The Prime Minister's decision to cancel his trip this month to Rio de Janeiro to attend the summit meeting between the EU and South American states, while completely understandable in the circumstances, is in this respect most unfortunate.
I hope that the Minister's response to today's debate will be a first step in dispelling the regrettable impression that relations with Latin America are not among the foremost of this Government's global foreign policy priorities. I hope that she will emphasise the Government's commitment to developing relations and strengthening ties with Latin America into the next century. To do otherwise would indeed he a false economy. The United Kingdom and Latin America together can take a great many sensible and important steps forward in enabling Latin America to become a key emerging market, growing in importance within the global economy. Indeed, I believe that Latin America and the southern cone region in particular, as my noble friend Lord Walker mentioned, present one of the most exciting and dynamic opportunities of the next century. Here I must also declare an interest as Managing Director of the independent Power Corporation. In declaring an interest, I echo the praise given to our ambassadors and their staff in Latin America. It is fairly rare, as a number of your Lordships will know, to attend foreign affairs debates on a regular basis. It is fairly rare to hear such extensive praise heaped on our diplomatic staff, but in my experience, certainly my commercial experience over the past I0 years in Latin America, this praise tonight from all quarters of this House is richly deserved.
There is a broad consensus, and has been throughout the debate, on the need to deal with Latin American issues within the emerging democratic and constitutional framework. In each case, constitutional processes, democracy and the rule of law have not been sidestepped in the region's rapid development, demonstrating, in my view, the increasing political maturity of both the Latin American leadership and the electorate. The peaceful resolution of the border dispute between Ecuador and Peru last month is yet another excellent example of that new-found maturity.
Nevertheless, although the countries of Latin America have made a common commitment to follow the path of representative democracy, in particular in the 1991 Santiago Commitment, strengthened at the 1994 Miami Summit, that path is still a steep one, beset by obstacles and challenges. As my noble friend Lord Radnor reminded us about Latin American democracy, neither democracy nor prosperity can endure unless they are broadly based—indeed, as broadly based as his family.

1513
The policies of free markets and of open investment, which are the keys to sustained growth, will not be fully unlocked while people feel shut out and left behind. Fairness before the law is not an option for some while institutional weaknesses remain.
We should not forget that Latin America has the highest income inequality in the world. Too many still remain cut off from the benefits of the new global economy. The Inter-American Development Bank estimates that in Latin America the top 20 per cent of the population receive one-quarter of the income, while the poorest 30 per cent receive only 8 per cent of the income—a lower proportion than anywhere else in the world. To put it in more contemporary and stark terms, one in every three people in Latin America and the Caribbean live on less than two dollars a day.
So, unless democracy and the market system improve the lot of those people—a fact recognised and addressed with innovative policies by a number of South American politicians, not least the outstanding former president of Bolivia, President Goni Sanchez de Lozada, in his capitalisation initiative—this will remain a threat to stability and political freedom. The disenfranchisement of the urban poor, of rural indigenous people and of the uneducated everywhere threatens to become an increasingly volatile political issue if growth is not seen to be bringing tangible benefits to all levels of society. Poverty brings with it the sinister bedfellows of crime, of drug abuse, of poor education, to which a number of noble lords have referred, and of poor health.
The key to democratic stability must be the establishment of a strong middle class with a vested interest in the political stability of the country. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, alluded to that. The examples of Chile and its pension funds and, in the much wider and further-afield context, of Taiwan, and more recently of the capitalisation programme in Bolivia, bear testimony to the importance of developing a strong middle class—a middle class which has a vested interest in the stability of the country. For too long, one has had a series of élites with a large, disenfranchised majority. As the élites go abroad and those from America return to run a number of these countries, that transition among the élite at one level has had significant detrimental effects on a disenfranchised urban and rural poor.
It is that establishment of a middle class, through such initiatives as the Chilean pension schemes, that allows the stability that is essential economically to back political stability in those countries. We are seeing such economic developments now. They are praiseworthy and I hope that the Government will support them, not least through debt development swaps and further debt relief work to ensure that in the poorest countries of Latin America significant progress can be made towards enhancing and reinforcing the middle class and the stability that flows from having a strong and enfranchised middle class.
In the last few moments of my contribution, I should like to comment on our relationship with Chile. I am well aware, as the noble Baroness knows, that today is not the occasion to discuss the Government's handling of Senator Pinochet's extradition case, and I do not
1514
intend to do so. However, I should like to ask the Minister—this is a question that has rightly been asked by a number of other noble Lords this evening—to what extent she believes that our commercial and political relationship with Chile has been affected by the case, particularly with regard to the Falkland Islanders.
As the Minister will be aware, last December Chile and Argentina issued a joint declaration in which Chile for the first time officially recognised Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands. That was followed by the cessation of LanChile flights to and from the Falkland Islands at the end of March when its contract with the Falkland Islands Development Corporation expired. Can the Minister explain why, on 20th April this year, in another place, the Foreign Secretary insisted that the continuation of that contract was a commercial matter for discussion between LanChile and the Falkland Islands Development Corporation when, in fact, the Government of Chile had issued a decree prohibiting Chilean carriers from flying to the Falklands with effect from 10th April, particularly given the Government's knowledge of the Chilean Government's decision last December to ask Chilean carriers not to fly to the Falklands Why did not the Government take the opportunity to remind the Chilean Foreign Minister of the commercial and social benefits for remote communities both in the Falklands and in southern Chile, when the flights first stopped at the end of March instead of waiting until four weeks later?
One hundred and fifty years ago, Simon Bolivar said that he wanted Latin America to be measured not by her vast wealth and area, but.
"by her freedom and glory".
That day is not yet here, but Bolivar's vision is nearer than at any time in Latin America's past. If the region continues to make progress at its current rate as we enter a new century, the day will come in Latin America when, across the continent, growth is increased; living standards are improved; a modern and well educated workforce is built up; poverty is decreased; income inequality is narrowed; democracy is consolidated and open markets have become an integral part of Latin American institutions and culture.
Britain and Latin America have a joint interest in political stability, in the promotion of democracy, in the security of our investments, and in further developing a thriving and growing trading partnership. I say to the Minister that Latin America offers a compelling case for closer active British engagement, and I look forward to her response.
8.36 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, for introducing this debate. In his years in your Lordships' House the noble Viscount has shown an unrivalled commitment to the Latin American region, and he has amply demonstrated his expertise tonight. He called this debate his "valedictory". As with so many other noble Lords, I can only say, "I hope not". We greatly value the noble Viscount's contributions on this

1515
important part of the world and we acknowledge the high regard in which he is held by the Latin American community.
I should also like to associate myself with the warm comments made by many noble Lords about the knowledgeable and impressive maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester. Like other noble Lords, I look forward to his future contributions.
I am particularly glad that the noble Viscount called this debate now; it is very timely. As has been mentioned, in just three weeks, the EU/Latin America and Caribbean Summit will take place in Rio de Janeiro. That will be a landmark event in the development of relations between our two regions. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is very disappointed at being unable to attend. He is telephoning President Cardoso this evening to express his regret. The deadline for devolution in Northern Ireland is 30th June, as your Lordships are well aware, and the Prime Minister must stand ready to do whatever is necessary to help the parties to reach agreement. He has nominated my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary as his representative at the summit. He will be accompanied by my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean. We are anxious to ensure that the summit, as well as providing an opportunity for the leaders of both regions to get together for bilateral meetings, will lead to substantive action that benefits the people of both regions.
The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. and the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Avebury, referred to the particular expectations of the Mercosur countries at the summit concerning EU/Mercosur and EU/Chile free trade agreements. The Government understand their interests and have been working for an EU compromise which would promote comprehensive trade liberalisation on both sides. We do not have the same problems on agricultural products as some of our European partners, but we recognise that those problems exist and need to be taken into account in the negotiations.
The World Trade Organisation multilateral negotiations are due to begin next year, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned. Any new EU/Mercosur and EU/Chile trade agreements must be compatible with the WTO principles. We have therefore agreed for discussions to begin soon about practical ways in which our two regions can co-operate in the WTO round and for bilateral negotiations about free trade between our regions to begin in 2000. That will be discussed further at the next General Affairs Council on 21st June. I hope that that explanation answers the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Mercosur countries should know that our goal is the same as theirs; to press ahead to achieve comprehensive trade liberalisation as quickly as possible. This should include all products, including agricultural ones. Staying with commercial issues, in 1998 UK exports to Latin America totalled £2,962 million. Our exports over the previous decade grew at an annual rate of some 12 per cent, second only to our exports to Eastern Europe. In some countries we are doing particularly well; in
1516
Venezuela, for example, where UK exports increased by 20 per cent from 1997 to 1998. As regards investment, the UK is among the top investors in the region. I say that in order to paint a brighter picture than some of the pessimistic ones that have been put on the trade relationships between Britain and Latin America.
In addition, on 26th April, my noble friend Lady Amos informed the House of the measures we have taken to help alleviate the suffering of those affected by Hurricane Mitch, mentioned in the intervention of my noble friend Lord Grenfell. We will continue to play our part alongside others in the process of reconstruction. The UK is also at the forefront of international discussions to increase debt relief for the world's poorest countries.
I wish to pay tribute to the achievements of Latin American countries in the field of political and economic reform. There have been dramatic changes, as the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, and others such as the noble Lords, Lord Walker and Lord Grenfell, made clear tonight. Twenty years ago, more than 60 per cent of the region's populations were ruled by dictatorships and Latin America is now governed by elected civilian politicians. We do not underestimate the problems they face. For example, as pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, Paraguay has had problems. Its governmental system was severely tested in the spring.
With encouragement from its Mercosur neighbours, Paraguay has maintained control of the democratic process. The settlement of the border dispute between Peru and Ecuador is also very welcome, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out. My honourable friend, Mr Tony Lloyd, was able to walk across the border during his visit to the region in January this year.
We also welcome the increasing normalisation of relations between Guatemala and Belize, and moves towards greater cross-border co-operation. We continue to encourage both sides to explore the options for a settlement of a long-standing dispute between them and we stand ready to help where we can.
In Colombia, about which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, spoke with such a depth of knowledge and understanding, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend Lord Rea, also referred, President Pastrana has begun peace talks with the FARC guerrillas, for which an agenda was agreed in May. With our EU partners, we have strongly supported this process in public statements and have reiterated our readiness to help the Colombian Government in any way we can. But as some noble Lords painted out in the debate, there continue to be disturbing cases of human rights abuses in many of the countries of the region. These give us great cause for concern.
Protection of human rights is an integral component of our foreign policy strategy. We take every opportunity to raise our concerns and we support, both directly and through collaboration with interested NGOs, the efforts of these countries to improve the situation. There is a need for stronger measures to bring to justice those responsible for abuses, as various noble Lords pointed out, including the noble Baroness,

1517
Lady Hooper. If Latin American countries wish to be seen as having come fully of age as mature democracies, their administrations must address these problems.
The UK is fully committed to the international fight against drugs. That topic was also referred to by several noble Lords tonight. We are interested in any measures which will reduce and eventually eliminate the supply of drugs. Latin America is the main source of cocaine consumed world-wide. An action plan on counter drugs strategy was recently approved at a high level meeting between the EU, Latin American and Caribbean governments. We expect that it will be endorsed at the EU/Latin American/Caribbean Summit in Rio at the end of this month.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, mentioned Mexico. I am pleased that he did because it is an important country. UK/Mexico relations have strengthened since President Zedillo came to power in 1994. During his visit to the UK in October 1998, he and the Prime Minister signed a UK/Mexico joint action plan. This co-operation is reinforced by regular ministerial contacts and high-level political dialogue.
I am conscious that my time is limited, so I wish to turn to two specific topics touched on by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, and the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. It is particularly timely to consider our relationship with Argentina as part of this debate. We welcome the continuing improvement in our relations in recent years. The task of rebuilding our relationship has been made easier because the two countries have had special ties of friendship and shared interests stretching back almost two centuries. Indeed, the warmth of that historical friendship served to emphasise the tragic nature of the events in 1982, about which the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, spoke most movingly.
As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, mentioned, the visits of President Menem to the UK in October 1998 and of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to Argentina and the Falkland Islands in March 1999 contributed to the creation of a new spirit of understanding and reconciliation between the UK and Argentina.
Noble Lords will be aware that a meeting took place in London in May between the UK and Argentine delegations, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, to discuss issues of common interest in the South Atlantic. The talks were held in a friendly, open and constructive atmosphere, building on the new spirit in our relationship. Both delegations agreed that they would continue to work together to find ways of making progress over a range of South Atlantic issues of common interest. They agreed to meet again as soon as possible to discuss such issues further. We hope that the first meeting will be the start of a process of dialogue which may in the longer term improve the management of our differences with Argentina on South Atlantic issues.
Secondly, I can assure the House that this Government place great value on our relations with Chile. I have no hesitation in reassuring the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and other noble Lords about that. The
1518
links between Britain and Chile are long-standing and mutually advantageous. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, that as a good Scot I had heard about his illustrious ancestor many times from any Chilean friend I ever met.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, that I shall not go into matters that, in my opinion, are sub judice.
Chile's liberal free market approach to trade, which we share, is an example to others, as are the sound economic policies which Chile has pursued over the past decade. We fully recognise the difficulties that successive Chilean governments have had to overcome to achieve a successful transition to democracy.
We have kept in close touch with the Chilean Government since Senator Pinochet's arrest on 16th October. We are aware of the problems that the arrest has caused in Chile. We have taken pains to assure the Chileans that the detention of the senator is entirely a judicial matter relating to our obligations under international law. There is no question of a political motive for the action.
Therefore, we consider that the political measures that Chile has taken against us, including her decision to prohibit the airline LanChile from flying to the Falklands, to be unjustified. That matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I can assure him that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has told the Chilean Foreign Minister that we strongly disagree with the decree. Indeed, we hope that the Government of Chile will withdraw all measures introduced against us as soon as possible and that we can work together to keep our relations on track. We firmly believe that it is in the interests of both countries to reduce the risks of further negative consequences to our long-term relations.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what prospect is there of an air service between the Falkland Islands and Argentina, raised by Mr Guido di Tella?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not up to date on that matter. I too have heard of that possibility, but I do not know the details of any negotiations. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord if I find that there are such details.
I want to speak about the importance of direct contacts at high level between our two regions. Some noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, appear to suggest that we have not done enough about that. Over the past two years there have been some 50 outward ministerial visits to Latin American and Caribbean countries and a number of royal visits. In the past year alone my honourable friend, Tony Lloyd, has visited 10 countries in the region. As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, four leading Latin American presidents paid official visits to Britain between December 1997 and October 1998, as have two vice-presidents and numerous ministers from the region. Quite rightly, the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, referred to the importance of such contacts. We plan to continue them and to build on that level of contact.

1519
As mentioned, elections are due in Uruguay, Guatemala, Chile and Argentina before the end of the year. New leaders have already been elected in Panama and El Salvador. We shall be working to ensure that our relations with the new administrations are maintained at the same excellent level.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the enormous contribution that Canning House, under the excellent presidency of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, is currently making to the whole question of relationships between Britain and Latin America. The Foreign Office is happy to be giving £40,000 a year as a grant to Canning House.
My noble friend Lord Rea referred to relations with Cuba and particularly to scientific links. I am glad to say that the co-operation to which he referred between the Finlay Institute and the British scientific institutions is progressing and we hope that it will lead to early results.
I now want to refer to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, whose illustrious ancestor—about whose personal life my noble friend knows a lot more than I have in my brief—has been described as the midwife at the birth of Uruguay in 1828. In reply to the specific point that my noble friend raised, although the British Council has no office in Montevideo, a programme for Uruguay is managed by the council directorate in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The programme for Uruguay focuses principally on education, English teaching and the arts.
In passing I want to pay tribute to the British Council and the valuable work that it does, together with the cultural, throughout the region. As to the importance of cultural links and the scholarship programmes referred to by my noble friend Lord Rea and the noble Lord, Lord Walker, we entirely agree with what they said about the importance of such activity. The FCO spends about £3 million to £4 million per annum on Latin America, enabling some 240 scholars to study in the UK. We hope that the programme will continue to expand.
I have to welcome the complimentary references to the diplomatic staff throughout Latin America. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, they have been particularly warm and heartfelt. I believe that they are well-deserved and that the remarks were very generous. I am sure that the staff at the Foreign Office will gratefully read those compliments in the Official Report. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, will understand that I am not in a position to make the long-term establishment commitments on Latin America for which she asked.
In drawing this debate to a close, I again thank the noble Viscount for giving us this opportunity to discuss the subject. The Government are committed to strengthening their partnership with the countries of Latin America and fostering even closer relations as we move into the next century. We share a common history and common values. We are working together to improve international stability, democracy, good governance and an improved quality of life for all the populations of our two regions. The dialogue that we
1520
enjoy is open and friendly and we have a lot to learn from each other. In the coming years we intend to improve our co-operation even further for our mutual benefit.
8.56 p.m
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I have about one minute to go before the time for this debate expires. I thank noble Lords for the kind remarks that they made about me. They were somewhat over the top. They are a great encouragement to continue the important work of promoting good relations with Latin America.
I also want to congratulate my noble friend Lord Walker on his splendid maiden speech. We need to hear from him as he has great experience.
I want to echo what other noble Lords have said, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, in support of Foreign Office activities in Latin America. We have splendid diplomatic missions and very good British Council offices. It is encouraging to hear what the noble Baroness said about that.
The debate has shown that this is a large subject. We should have more debates on the individual countries and on the various sectors that we have covered. There is far too much to do in this area and, of course, not enough time in which to do it. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Artificial Limbs
8.58 p.m.
Lord Rowallan Lord Rowallan rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider allowing the limbless a greater choice in deciding who their prosthetist should be and what type of artificial limb to purchase, by introducing a voucher scheme.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it should be obvious that the limbless are manifestly severely disabled. Sadly, it is equally obvious that all too often they receive treatment and care of a poor standard. That is regrettable, given the strength of the National Health Service in this country.
For a long time I have known a young girl, now aged 23, called Lisa Murphy. She was born a thalidomide child with half of one leg missing and a deformed hand. She is a lovely girl who has never had a whole body as I have, and yet she has coped with the life that she has been allotted in the bravest and most natural way.
For years, as she grew up, she suffered from poor quality false limbs that were ill-fitting and uncomfortable. When she was younger, they were very often similar to the peg-leg made famous by Long John Silver. She suffered the pain and the indignity in silence and with great fortitude. She was determined to lead a normal life. Later she took up my sport of show jumping,. She was so determined to succeed and Ito compete with able-bodied people that she has represented her country as a junior rider, as a young rider and as an adult rider.

1521
She had many difficulties. There was one very famous occasion at a large agricultural show when, after having an extremely badly-fitting limb, she was going round the ring on her pony and fell off. Unfortunately, the leg went off with the pony and she went to the ground. The consequence was that medical assistance was required all around the arena as women collapsed, horrified at what they thought was a major accident. But it just shows what can happen if one has a badly fitted limb. I can assure the House that poor Lisa only had to suffer one thing; that is, the indignity of waiting for someone to bring her her leg so that she could walk out of the ring.
Lisa always walked with a limp and her spine was twisted as a result of wearing incorrectly fitted limbs, which she was assured were the best she could obtain. There was never a mention of the possibility of going private to get a different kind of leg. As far as she and her parents were concerned, there were no alternatives available. But eventually she learnt about the Dorset Orthopaedic Company, a firm of limb providers based in Ringwood, Hampshire. This world-renowned company specialises in producing cosmetically correct limbs using silicone.
Lisa has now got a leg she did not know she could get. Her local authority never advised her or her family of its availability. She says it is comfortable, and it looks like the real thing, even to having freckles and hair follicles. Now for the first time she can go on a holiday and wear a swimsuit—even a bikini—or simply wear shorts in the summer. It has given her confidence and has created an altogether much happier, contented and prettier girl. It has literally transformed her life and her outlook on it. In short, she can finally do with confidence what I do and have always been able to do as an able-bodied person—except strip off, with my belly! For the first time since I have known her she does not have a limp and if I did not know the leg was false, I honestly would not know that it was. It is so real and, importantly for Lisa, it feels like proper skin too.
I should like to quote from a very moving letter I received from a Tony Giddings, who is listening to this debate. His daughter Laura lost a leg in the Planet Hollywood explosion in Johannesburg last year. It is a very moving letter. I have no regrets about quoting it at length. It reads:
"On the 25th August, 1998 our world was literally blown apart. Not only were we exposed to the horror of seeing people with their legs missing, we also had to suffer the torment of seeing our children mutilated. At one moment we had a normal happy family and the next we had a disabled daughter and a critically injured son.
Unfortunately, in Laura's case the NHS system for the care of amputees and the provision of artificial limbs was to fail on many levels. From the outset we received very little support from our regional hospital, Southampton General. They failed to explain how the system worked and what our options were … When we arrived at what in fact turned out to be the Portsmouth Limb Centre [on our first visit] no consideration was given to the fact that this was our first experience of life as an amputee. We were asked to wait in the general reception area with artificial limbs in full view … The consultant was very cold and very matter of fact in his manner, and made no attempt to talk to Laura [an eight-year old child] in order to gain her confidence. He then produced what can only be described as a 'Barbie doll leg' which was nothing like what we expected. When we asked about the availability of silicone cosmesis we were
1522
told that it was not available on the NHS because it was too expensive. We replied that we knew that it was available because we knew a girl who had a silicone foot, and he then told us that 'we should not have anything to do with people like that'! We replied that we were prepared to pay for the silicone cosmesis only to be told 'in my opinion it is a complete waste of money and not necessary for a child'. Needless to say that we were all very distressed when we left Portsmouth Limb Centre.
At our follow-up appointment with Laura's consultant at Southampton General Hospital we said that under no circumstances would we subject Laura to the Portsmouth Limb Centre again, only to be told that in fact we had no choice … As this avenue appeared to be blocked we then asked about getting a silicone cosmesis from a private clinic to which he replied 'there are no private clinics in this country that provide artificial limbs and your only option is to stay within the NHS'.
Fortunately for Laura, both Mandy and I are very strong characters and very motivated, therefore the very next day through contacts that we had made with other amputees we found the telephone number and address for Bob Watts at Dorset Orthopaedic and duly made an appointment. When we notified Laura's consultant at Southampton General Hospital that we had made our own arrangements he demanded that we go in and see him to explain ourselves. He then followed this up by making an official complaint to our GP.
At the meeting with him he told us 'it does not matter what the bloody thing looks like, it only has to work'. He also suggested that we were harming Laura by taking her out of the system and furthermore, that he may actually refuse to treat her in the future if we did. When we asked what further treatment Laura required, he told us that it was necessary for him to cut the tendons in the back of her leg to get it straight as soon as possible, and that it would be necessary for him to trim her leg three or four times as she grew (in fact, we now know that to cut the tendons in the hack of her leg is not considered to be an acceptable practice today because of the scar tissue that it leaves, and that the best approach for the revision of her leg is for it to be trimmed once hack to II cm below her knee which will allow it to grow to an optimum length of 15 cm as an adult). We tried to explain how important it was for us as parents that Laura got the best treatment because of our [perceived] failure to protect her, only to be told 'it's not my problem, that's one for the psychiatrist'."
That is appalling treatment of someone who suffered the traumatic experience of having their leg taken away. I am glad to say that the leg produced by Dorset Orthopaedics was a good fit, which means that she has never experienced pain as a user. Moreover, because it is so life-like, she has never suffered the psychological problems that many users experience, as demonstrated when she sat on the floor of No. 10 to show it to Mrs. Blair.
I move on to the case of Helen Smith who lost all four limbs after an attack of meningitis. She said that the hospital made her out to be a silly little girl who was only bothered about her appearance. Only an idiot cannot see that any young woman wants to look pretty and normal after such a traumatic experience, rather than something that has escaped from a freak show. Yet the spokesman for Addenbrooke's hospital—the hospital where Helen was treated and lay in a coma for three weeks—Keith Day, had the effrontery and the audacity to tell the Daily Mirror newspaper who are now championing Helen's cause:
"She has seen what the model Heather Mills has had from a private organisation and wants that instantly for herself but there is no way that the NHS is going to provide that. What was offered to her was functional and appropriate limbs in a timely fashion consistent with her clinical need. That is not the same as her personal aspirations".

1523
He can say that again! With false legs that do not fit and that make her feel as if she is walking on stilts in boots that are too big and leave her feeling, even after a short walk, as if she has run a marathon, and with a hook for one arm and nothing at all for the other, she certainly has cause to complain that her personal aspirations are not being considered. I have a picture of her. I am sure no female would warn to look like that. Beside her is a lady who has had a limb put on again and she looks perfectly normal.
We are hearing of totally disgraceful behaviour towards these people. It must be obvious that, because amputation is not a common procedure within the NHS, many regional hospitals do not understand the trauma caused when a part of the body is removed, not only for the amputee but also for the family.
Helen has been told by a local NHS authority that the cost of £20,000 was too great. Yet, if she had lived in one of the 24 health authorities that do refer their amputees to this world famous clinic, she could have received the care she longs for. I was glad to learn tonight from Bob Watts of Dorset Orthopaedic that, thanks to the efforts of the Daily Mirror, she will in fact get all the limbs that she wants—indeed, all four of them.
I must ask: why is there an unequal artificial limb service from one region of the country to another? The McColl report said that in 1983–84 the budget for the artificial limb service was £38.5 million. In 1997, it was £30 million, representing a reduction of nearly £8 million. Is the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, aware of this reduction in costs and services to the limbless? I ask him to let us know what the budget is for 1999.
Component hardware costs have risen dramatically in the same period; so it is obvious that the savings on the NHS have come from somewhere. The obvious casualty has been the service side. Thus, the quality of the service is being lessened. The prosthetists do not have the time to do their job properly and can only stop waiting times from rising by reducing the amount of time they spend with patients. The consequence is ill-fitting limbs without comfortable sockets, as they are not designed properly. Thus government money—taxpayers' money, my money and your Lordships' money—is being totally wasted. I am told that a good 50 per cent of the limbs produced in NHS centres do not fit. They are simply discarded and another produced. Can noble Lords imagine the trauma for the user and the waste of money for the NHS?
The user of artificial limbs has four needs—comfort, capability, cosmesis and caring. Comfort is needed in order to allow the user to achieve optimal function and independence and stop "ill-fitting socket induced" phantom limb pain. Capability is important in order to allow the user to have the correct limb appropriate for his or her individual lifestyle. Cosmesis is an important consideration because, if it is not cosmetically acceptable, the limb is no good for users either mentally or physically. Finally, caring is needed because, as I have shown, the lack of care is all too prevalent in our hospitals.
However, all these things should be provided as the norm rather than the exception. It should not be affected by cost but based on clinical need; and patients should not be forced into the private field. But if the Government will not insist that the NHS provides a proper limb to suit the users' needs, then why not allow the patients to get the leg they want if it is not going to cost the taxpayer money? They must enjoy the freedom of choice that we have. It must not be assumed that all users have the same needs. People who lose a limb suffer a double disfigurement: the stump and the wearing of an artificial aid. Why do we make it harder for them by not automatically providing the best that is available?
I ask the Minister to address the following questions in his response. When will the Government introduce a national service framework on disablement services? Are the Government serious about creating a new disablement services authority? Can the Minister let the House know what the Government intend to do about the inconsistent service provision? Will the Government consult with users, and how? Will the Government ensure that appointments to the national institute for clinical excellence and the commission for health improvement include limbless people? Will the Government give more information to potential users to include services available, types of limb available and a list of limb centres both within the NHS and the private system? Will the Government ensure that limbs are manufactured to a nationally-recognised standard? Will the Government accept the beneficial effects of silicone cosmesis, especially for young women and children?
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to give an assurance that this Government will accept that the way forward must be a voucher system for the limbless whereby they can go to the prosthetist of their choice and either take the NHS limb on offer or upgrade it to one of a higher specification if they have the finances and the inclination so to do? It would not cost any more; indeed, it could actually save money, as there would no waste from ill-fitting limbs. That is already working with motability where it is allowable to upgrade the size of your motorcar if you wish. It is also working with wheelchairs where, again, you can upgrade if you wish.
Surely it must be possible to give these unfortunate limbless people a chance to improve the quality of their lives by introducing such a system. After all, it is not their fault that they are limbless. It would also have the effect of creating centres of excellence because companies would invest long term to produce the best product. Surely a voucher or prescription system would be a more accurate way of giving the limbless the same service countrywide, instead of the take-it-or-leave-it attitude that prevails at the moment. The best reason of all for introducing such a system is that it is wanted by the industry itself, by the patients who want the freedom to choose, by the prosthetists who want to give their clients the best possible limb and by the manufacturers of the limbs as it would allow them to invest in the future—all at no cost and possibly at great savings to the NHS budget. This must be the way forward. I earnestly ask the Minister to think about this proposal very carefully.
9.12 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for giving your Lordships the opportunity to discuss this important matter, which is most important to an individual. I ask the question, and perhaps the Minister will answer it when concluding the debate; how high up the priority list in the Department of Health do prostheses and the limb fitting centres come?
I served for several years on the Yorkshire Regional Health Authority. I would look down the agenda when we were discussing plans for the years ahead. The mentally ill would be mentioned, but there would be no mention of the physically disabled population. I would press for an answer. The answer would come that they were incorporated in the budget with other miscellaneous matters. People with disabilities do not deserve to be submerged and sunk without trace!
The House of Lords has had a busy day today with two long debates before this one. Here we are again at the end of a long agenda. The Government are making many changes in the National Health Service; indeed, now is the time to raise this Cinderella service. There seem to be plans to make local communities more responsible for their health services. As many doctors working in the primary health care field have little knowledge and even less interest in long-term disability, I hope the Government will realise that disabled people who need prostheses need what is correct and comfortable for them. They need choice. I have visited limb fitting centres both in Leeds and London. I found dedicated people working to the best of their ability having to spend half their time trying to raise money. They did not have very up-to-date materials to work with and the work places were far from modern.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell your Lordships tonight how the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) will work. I have a real fear that it may spend most of its time working on the drugs side. I hope that the Government will have the sense to divide it up so that there is a department of NICE that is concerned with drugs and a department that is concerned with looking after all clinical treatments in the health service, including the limb fitting prosthesis centres.
We who respect and honour our National Health Service want it to be the best in the world. It should be consistent across the country. It should have high standards and it should be the duty of NICE to oversee those standards. It should monitor health authorities. The Limbless Association tells me that health authorities across the country differ considerably. Some will refer patients to where they will get the best prostheses and service, others will not.
I quote from the Express of Saturday 20th March:
"Plea of student left without arms and legs by meningitis".
The article states:
"Helen Smith, who had her arms and legs amputated after contracting meningitis claims that the Cambridgeshire Health Authority is refusing to pay for the artificial limbs she so desperately needs. Doctors were forced to amputate to save her life because all her limbs had a gangrene-type infection caused by blood poisoning. Helen claims independent specialists have assessed her as being suitable for myo-electric artificial hands which would give her a
1526
new lease of life and she could get back to work. She said 'I thought I would get the best available limbs on the NHS, but the artificial legs I got were useless'. The NHS has not been able to provide this young lady with what she feels is necessary for her needs".
The best artificial arm I saw at an exhibition was made in Italy. The colour and texture were excellent and even the veins looked realistic. We are in Europe, in the Common Market. If Italian made artificial arms are better than others, we should buy Italian ones. At another health conference I attended I found that the best food trolleys were French made. The corners were rounded so that they could be easily cleaned. Given the increase in infections in hospitals we should buy these French-made trolleys. If we do not do so, what is the point of being in the Common Market?
Local health authorities can become very parochial, with little interest in matters regarding disability. I agree with Empower—a consortium of organisations dealing with disabilities—which states that the Government should establish a disablement services authority to address the widespread and expensive disparity in the quality of disablement services provision.
The Government speak of a joined-up seamless service. I find with disability services—especially with social services—that everything seems to be contracted out, with more and more fragmentation and more and more complicated forms. People with severe disability and their families do not need this increasing bureaucracy. They need the best possible equipment, be it prostheses, wheelchairs or hearing aids, so that they can get on with their lives. I do not think that a voucher scheme for prostheses is logical as there needs to be a good repair service and support from specialists on account of the ongoing changes and needs. But above all, patients need choice.
Some weeks ago we were all shocked by the horrific bomb in Soho. Innocent people had their limbs ripped off. There was a great deal of drama at that time. The Home Secretary and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales visited the scene. That was all very laudable, but who picks up the pieces and tries to put them together again? It is our National Health Service. I hope that good limbs of the best silicon material will be provided for these unfortunate victims if that is the best thing for them.
There is far more to contend with than just artificial limbs. There is the coming to terms with the traumatic injury; there are psychological aspects, which sometimes get neglected; there is the phantom pain that has to be fought. I hope these patients are progressing well.
Again, in some areas rehabilitation services are better than in other health service authorities, a situation that I hope NICE will rectify.
When I was coming to your Lordships' House yesterday, my taxi driver told me about a friend of his who had lost his leg through an accident. He had become depressed and had tried to commit suicide. It had taken him two years to come to terms with his condition. Now he is fine and goes out dancing. I had the pleasure to meet Douglas Bader, He told me that he

1527
had to have at least four legs, and one black leg for evening wear. As the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, said, legs do break.
Prostheses do not cover limbs only; they replace ears, nipples, breasts and parts of faces. It is a most important service for those who need it. It needs pushing up the health agenda at both national and local levels. I hope the Minister will help to do this.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, perhaps I may preface my remarks by commenting on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan. His description of the consultant reminded me of the worst examples of professionals treating someone who comes into their care with a degree of contempt. It occurs in all spheres but we have heard about it far too often in cases of disability. That kind of consultant will say, "I know best, keep quiet", even when he does not know best. A long time ago someone said to me: "Always trust someone who admits that they do not know everything and might be wrong". If we can encourage all professionals—in this field and in others—to admit that they might not know everything, we probably would be doing ourselves a great many favours in future. The minute one sets an absolute in this field and does not open up slightly, one will make mistakes—if not on one occasion then on the next.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, have said, certain groups of the amputee society—the young and those who wish to take part in some sort of athletic activity—have particular problems and needs in this field. I am a sportsman. We have reached a stage of technical skill to enable people to sprint with an artificial leg. I would not have kept up with a champion fitted with artificial limbs—certainly with one artificial limb—even when I was younger and fitter than I am today.
The reason for such progress is that technology has enabled the foot to store energy like a spring. I forget the correct terminology for the substances. Basically energy is stored which enables one to move and flex and to generate power to the rest of the body. Such technology should be made generally available. Initially, at least, it should be made available to younger people when they lose limbs. Thankfully, there are only 5,000 amputees a year, and the figure is likely to go down as surgical techniques and after-care for damaged limbs improve.
We must ensure that this technology is readily available. As has already been pointed out, we are talking about someone's quality of life. If the limb enables someone to take part in day-to-day life on a virtually normal basis—or at least gives the appearance of normality—that is important, at least in the short term. Many disabled people need to feel that they are once again a part of society and not cut off. If we can do that we will be reducing many of the psychological problems of isolation which are being ignored.
It is not good enough merely to accept that a person can make it from one position to another, slowly and painfully. I have taken part in many education debates
1528
dealing with the subject of special needs. We have now established that any help given in that field, and in most other fields of disability, should be based on the needs of individuals. They should be allowed to take part on as near normal a basis as possible. We cannot simply class people together when it comes to help.
That means that there must be flexibility in our approach to the type of limb that is provided; there must be provision for each person on the basis of that person's lifestyle, or the lifestyle that he or she can reasonably expect. That definition will feed lawyers for years. They will argue and fight; there will be case law. But we must strive towards that goal.
As to a voucher scheme, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, that I am shocked by his moderation. It may be a first step. But his idea is that it should merely be there within the NHS. The noble Lord may be right. But unless we begin to address the problem as being individually based, we shall not get very far.
To return briefly to sport, under the current system there should be some kind of central referring body for those who are involved in sport. At present. a person living in one area may receive assessment and individual help, but a person living in another area may not. Leeds has been pointed out to me as a good area for referrals for artificial sports limbs, but apparently people living in Sheffield do not receive the same kind of help. The two places are not that far apart. Surely we can make sure that within the NHS, which is after all a national service, people have access to the best. If there is a bureaucratic problem preventing that, this House and the other place change laws and regulations all the time. Indeed, we are often not required to do that ourselves; we merely have to nod at others, and they do it for us. Surely something like that can be done.
Last time, the Paralympics was used as a kind of damp sponge to the bruised pride of a nation not winning enough gold medals in the main Olympics. Surely, if disabled athletes are to be held up as an example and used in this way, disabled athletes—or in this case, one group of disabled athletes—deserve some consideration. They are few in number, but they are specialist cases. If a few rules are not convenient to those cases, I suggest that they should be changed. This is a matter where a little common sense and the discarding of bureaucracy would make all the difference.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Hussey of North Bradley: My Lords, I must first declare several interests. I have worn an artificial limb for over 55 years. I served on the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I am on the council of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, and I am the patron of the Association of Prosthetists and Orthotists (BAPO). As I have a prosthesis on a leg that was amputated and an orthosis on the leg that was paralysed as a result of a spinal wound, I was a soft touch for that job.
Many changes have taken place in the 55 years that I have worn an artificial limb. Although I am appalled by some of the points raised by the noble Lord,

1529
Lord Rowallan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I can only speak from my own experience, although I shall refer to those problems later.
My experience has been that there has been a huge improvement in the equipment made available to us and in the attitude of people towards the limbless. For instance, in the Holderness Centre at Charing Cross Hospital, which I attend—I previously attended Roehampton—there is now a sister permanently on duty. That is a great help, particularly for those of us who have problems with our stump. It was not always like that. On one occasion, about 20 years after the war, I had been salmon fishing in Scotland and had fallen into the river, which often happened. When I took the artificial leg back to Roehampton it was not in a very good condition. The doctor who examined me asked me what I had been doing with the limb. I told him that I had been fishing for salmon. He said, "You have no right to do that. You have no right to treat government property like this". I replied in language not suitable for your Lordships' House.
Conditions in medicine have changed. In the Falklands war, people who were wounded and lost limbs were frequently in the hands of doctors in three or four hours. It was different for some of us, I did not see a doctor for three days and then it was a German. He was all right; he took off my leg; he gave me an anaesthetic, thank heaven, I was a bit windy about that.
Things have changed in other ways as well, but not in the number of amputations. I understand that 50,000 amputations take place, roughly as many as 20 or 30 years ago. What has changed is the reason for amputations. Happily we have far fewer military amputations, and I hope that that will remain true in spite of what is happening in the Balkans. But there are many more as a result of diabetes, vascular problems and similar difficulties.
Overall, I have to say that in my experience things are much better. I have a new prosthesis called a "siliposis sheaf" which has completely changed the comfort with which I can wear my artificial limb. It was volunteered to me quite arbitrarily and freely by my prosthetist. The BAPO has an exhibition every year at its conference and I am honoured to be a patron of the society. It is patronised by a large number of prosthetists from all over the country, and by virtually all the limb manufacturers. It is a fine exhibition, a wonderful example of the changes that have been made.
I am encouraged by that. I am very discouraged and distressed by the experiences of the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and the people he has met. I can only say that it has not been my experience, but I must have been lucky. It is appalling to think that the limbless could be treated like that. For women and children the disfigurement is a worse mental problem than for some of us who are older.
I can only speak from my experience which is that overall the prosthetists are much better, the sisters are there to help, the equipment is much better. Clearly there are faults and I am sad to hear some of the stories which we have heard this evening. But it is only fair to
1530
say that there are two sides to the issue. That is not what I have seen and heard. I in no way dispute the experiences of the people noble Lords have met. I can only say that from my experience of BAPO and the Holderness Centre there are many dedicated prosthetists, dedicated sisters and very much better equipment. If one has problems one is treated very well, alternative suggestions are made. So I can only imagine that I have been lucky and some people have been unlucky. That is bad. It is appalling that people who have lost a limb should be treated in the way we have heard today.
It is difficult. The noble Baroness mentioned the problem of arms. Arms have always been difficult, and if better arms are made in Italy than in this country we should use them. When I was at Roehampton towards the end of the war, we used to argue whether it was better to lose an arm than a leg. Funnily enough, the people who lost a leg thought it much better to lose a leg than an arm; the people who had lost an arm thought it much letter to lose an arm than a leg. So on the whole we were a fairly satisfied bunch.
Nevertheless, it is a terrible problem. If treatment like that happens, as it clearly does, in various parts of the country, it should be dealt with firmly by the authorities. It should be referred to higher authorities, and I have no doubt that the Minister will look into it. I hope that it is an exception; I cannot tell whether it is; I can only speak from my own experience. If such things happen, then no trouble or expense should be spared to put them right.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, like other noble Lords I thank the noble Lord. Lord Rowallan, for introducing this subject tonight. He introduced the matter very movingly and with a considerable degree of anger in his voice, which all of us who heard his speech can well understand in view of the case histories he described. We have heard some other remarkable speeches in a very short debate, notably that of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. There was also a rather encouraging and inspiring speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, the only contributor to this debate who is himself "a user" of prosthetics.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, argued for the principle of top-up for health equipment where patients are offered a basic service on the NHS but then pay privately to obtain the best quality equipment. But, as my noble friend Lord Addington made pretty clear, without good evidence of the benefits of a voucher scheme we on these Benches are very doubtful about going further along this road. We believe that this is the thin end of a rather thick wedge. Currently, there is a voucher system for wheelchairs which was set up some two years ago. It is being reviewed by the NHS Supplies Authority. Perhaps the Minister can inform the House of the current status of that review and provide a brief preview of its conclusions. It is very important in this context to see what has been the experience in those circumstances.
I note that the Health Minister in the Lords in March 1989, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, expressed reservations about a voucher scheme because of the

1531
specialised specification of artificial limbs and the need for expert clinical supervision when fitting them. Our reservations, however, are rather broader than that and are based perhaps on principle rather than purely the difficulties of the mechanics. We believe that this has the potential to strike at the very heart of a universal high quality NHS provision of prosthetics.
The key to high quality modern equipment being available at the right price, whether it be prosthetics, wheelchairs or hearing aids, is volume supply. The purchasing power of the NHS Supplies Authority is some £5 billion in total, which is enormous. Simply by specifying equipment for use in the NHS the authority can negotiate prices at something like one tenth of those for private supply. We have doubts in that context as to whether the NHS Supplies Authority is keeping abreast of modern technology. For example, no digital hearing aids are supplied on the NHS. The cost of a digital hearing aid supplied privately is between £1,000 and £2,000 compared with a hearing aid under the NHS at a cost approaching £90. There would be a considerable saving if one gained volume through purchase by the NHS Supplies Authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, spoke eloquently about a number of case histories, in particular the recent case of Helen Smith. That is a very cautionary tale. As he explained and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, described, Helen Smith had septicaemia arising from meningitis and had to have all four limbs amputated. To get the most modern prosthetic limbs with good cosmetic appearance meant that she faced a cost of thousands of pounds per limb. To pay privately for those prosthetics cannot be acceptable.
The present Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said in reply to a Written Question on this subject last September:
"The Government will, as part of its modernisation programme, strive to ensure that all patient care is delivered quickly, consistently and at the highest possible standards".—[Official Report, 3/9/98; col. WA 27.]
The Public Accounts Committee, in its report of November 1997 on the NHS Supplies Authority, expected the authority to maintain and develop a,
"healthy dialogue between all parties involved with a view to maintaining healthy competition and to enable the NHS to benefit to the full from innovative ideas and products",
which is just what we are talking about today.
In that context, I very much welcome the formation by NHS Supplies of the Prosthetic Strategic Supply Group, referred to in the government response of February 1998 to the report and also in the Minister's reply to the Question in September.
The last annual report of the NHS Supplies Authority was very encouraging about the intentions of the strategic supply group. I understand that it has so far met four times. We would be pleased to hear from the Minister what the outcome of its work has been thus far. It was designed to bring the manufacturers, users and clinicians together to discuss precisely what needs the users have and how best they can be provided for. This is a very important point in that context.
1532
Has the group, for instance, discussed the emPOWER Prostheses and Orthoses Users' Charter which specifies a user's four main needs, as referred to very cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan? These are the need for comfort, capability, cosmesis and caring, together with the need to recognise a user's changing needs.
As the Department of Health is only too well aware, there is a very strong consensus that current arrangements for the provision of disablement services are inadequate. EmPOWER, which has a strong involvement with the Limbless Association, believes that reinstatement as a special health authority of the Disablement Services Authority, which was merged with the NHS in 1991 and which was set up on the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, following his review of artificial limb and appliance services and the establishment of a national service framework for disablement services, is essential if the situation is to improve. Are these matters under consideration by the Department of Health? If so, perhaps the Minister can tell us what the timetable is and whether the Government are really contemplating their introduction?
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, made a point about the national institute for clinical excellence. What will be its role? Will it purely be around the question of drugs or will it be about prosthetics and so on? Will it have that wider role?
The essence of this matter, as clearly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, is the whole question of freedom of choice for users within the NHS system. I may not agree with his final recommendations. However, we all agree on the principle that the clinical needs of the user should take precedence. It should not be necessary for individuals to be forced into private care in order for them to have a suitable prosthesis to meet their needs.
I look forward very much to hearing the Minister's response and also to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord McColl, how he thinks matters have progressed since his original report.
9.43 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I too would like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for introducing this debate. I should at the outset declare an interest. I too am a member of BLESMA, I am the President of the Limbless Association and I was a member of the working party, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hussey of North Bradley and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach.
We were looking into the whole of the artificial limb and wheelchair service in 1985. We were delighted when almost all our recommendations were accepted by the Government in 1986. The Minister for Disabled People at that time was extremely helpful—an outstanding Minister; his name is John Major.
One of our recommendations was that there should be a voucher system for the wheelchair service. We were all very much aware of the problems of instituting such a system. Our original idea was that when a disabled person was assessed for a wheelchair, there should be

1533
a choice of either accepting the wheelchair which was deemed to be suitable for that type of disability or having a voucher which would equate to the value of the wheelchair on offer plus the cost of maintenance.
The idea of the voucher system was to provide an additional incentive for the providers to give a really good service. This was so because they would also have at the back of their minds the fact that a disabled person could reject the wheelchair on offer and take the voucher, add some of their own money and then go elsewhere for service. The disadvantage of the present voucher system for wheelchairs is that if disabled people take the voucher and purchase their own wheelchairs they have to pay for its maintenance. That is an unattractive proposition for disabled people. If the Government were to introduce a voucher system for artificial limbs, the same problem would obtain.
We have heard complaints, especially from young women who quite naturally want an artificial leg that looks as near as possible to normal. In many cases, that is not supplied. The name Heather Mills will be familiar to most of your Lordships. She was a successful professional model, who some years ago went for a holiday in Yugoslavia before the present troubles. She was enjoying her holiday when war broke out. She thought she had better leave the country quickly but then she decided to stay behind to see whether there was any way in which she could help. She came across many amputees. She was instrumental in getting some spare artificial limbs from the United Kingdom that were no longer required, either because they did not fit the first time or because they were no longer of use. She managed to obtain around 24,000 artificial limbs. She supplied a tremendous service and was a great inspiration. She worked very hard at that and then thought that she had better have a holiday.
She came back to London and within 24 hours was knocked down by a motorcyclist. Her leg was so badly injured that she had to have it amputated. Such is the marvellous character of Heather Mills that she rose above that disaster and said, "Well, now I really will know all about artificial legs". She has been a great tower of strength in her efforts to improve the service. She came to your Lordships' House for tea last summer wearing sandals and all her toenails were painted. She had secured an artificial leg which looked exactly like the real thing, but not alas! in the National Health Service but in the private sector.
The Government seem to have a problem with the private sector and what they regard as cosmesis and cosmetic surgery. The Government have deprived thousands of patients of the opportunity of having their varicose veins, sebaceous cysts and lipomas operated on under the NHS on the basis that they are cosmetic operations. Noble Lords are aware that cosmetic surgery is to improve the appearance of the patient. But many of these lesions, sebaceous cysts and lipomas are not visible. Sebaceous cysts are often on the scalp so taking them out can never be described as cosmetic surgery. They present patients with a problem in that every time they comb their hair they bump into one of these things—sometimes they are multiple—and they can be
1534
very painful. Lipomas are fatty tumours which in many cases are not at all obvious, and varicose veins are often concealed by trousers.
The other problem the Government have is their very obvious opposition and even hatred towards the whole idea of private practice. We have the chairman of the Select Committee on Health who was reported in the Health Service Journal as saying:
"I hate the bastards".
He was referring to those who do private practice. The Secretary of State for Health has also recorded his disdain for the whole subject of private practice. The Government are obviously in a slightly awkward position of their own making. Thousands of patients are deprived of operations. Patients have to go into the private sector. The do not necessarily want to go there and many of them cannot afford to. We have a situation where the private sector is despised by the Government. Will the Government review their attitude to the private sector and to cosmesis, artificial limbs and cosmetic surgery in general?
Many of the points that I was going to make have already been made and so I will not repeat them. As my noble friend Lord Rowallan said, for the consortium emPOWER to achieve all its goals it is essential that the user should have freedom of choice. When it comes to discussion about costs, if a really high-class artificial limb is properly fitted first time, subsequent alterations are less likely and the total cost may be less.
I had the privilege of working with my noble friend Lord Holderness who chaired the Disablement Services Authority which was set up in 1986 to implement our recommendations. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hussey of North Bradley, my noble friend Lord Holderness was also severely injured in the war. One of the moving features about these veterans is that you rarely hear them complain about anything to do with their disability. They simply get on with it, without fuss or complaint. That is another compelling reason why every possible effort should be made to provide them, and indeed all amputees, with the very best service we can.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for putting down the Question this evening and bringing to our attention a number of important issues that the health service has to tackle over the next few years. Like the noble Lord, I, too, salute the courage of so many people who have lost limbs and who therefore have to look to the NHS for support. It is evident from tonight's debate that all Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken share the Government's concern to provide the highest possible standard of service to people who have the misfortune to lose a limb.
I am well aware that a number of noble Lords have expressed concerns about current services. I wish to come back to some of them in a moment. It is important to put them in context.

1535
The NHS looks after 66.000 existing amputees and deals with about 4,000 new cases every year. Prosthetic services are delivered to patients through 33 disablement services centres in England. The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, was critical of some of those services, but perhaps I may say to him and other noble Lords at the outset that I believe the standard and volume of service provision of artificial limbs have improved over the past few years. That does not mean to say that there is no further room for improvement, but it is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, put to us, that we should accept and acknowledge the improvements that have taken place: the change of emphasis simply from limb fitting to providing a wider rehabilitation service; the development of the prosthetic profession, which in itself is improving the quality of service; the development of larger centres which are able to offer a greater continuity of expertise and access to other services; and the lead that this country has taken in a number of research areas. In acknowledging the good work that has taken place, it is right for me to pay tribute to the work which the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has undertaken in the development of those services.
As we have heard, he chaired the working party on the quality management of artificial limb and wheelchair services provided by centrally managed regional artificial limb and appliance centres. In response to his report, the Government established the Disablement Services Authority to manage the transition of these services to the NHS. It is readily apparent that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and his team exerted a great influence on the development of artificial limb services and, as noble Lords have heard tonight, although he was critical of the Government in one or two places, he continues to make a keen and constructive contribution to this important debate.
The key focus of our debate, apart from the general quality of services, is the potential of a voucher scheme. Before addressing the issue of a voucher scheme for artificial limb provision, I think that it would be helpful if I said a little more about the scheme which operates for wheelchair services.
The noble Lord, Lord McColl, provided some useful information about this. I shall respond particularly to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on this matter because I think it is apposite to our debate. In February 1996 the then government announced their intention to introduce a voucher scheme for users of wheelchair services, the first such scheme within the NHS. The concept was to enable disabled people to exercise greater choice in the selection of a wheelchair appropriate to their individual mobility needs. Patients would have the option of accepting the wheelchair which the NHS would normally provide or of having a voucher of equivalent value which they could use towards the purchase of a higher specification wheelchair of their choice.
The scheme was feasible particularly because of the existence of a network of local independent distributors able to offer users a wide range of
1536
alternative wheelchairs and to provide them with a reliable after-sales service. The legal provision allowing for the scheme to be introduced was set out in the National Health Service (Wheelchair Charges) Regulations 1996. This applies to wheelchair services only; there is no provision for it to apply to other NHS services.
The voucher scheme received a mixed welcome. Some user groups were concerned that it would only benefit those who could afford to contribute to a better wheelchair and that it would lead to a two-tier service. Implementation of the voucher scheme was further complicated by the simultaneous introduction of electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs. This was a welcome development to which health authorities and service providers gave priority. Because of that, many voucher schemes were slow in getting off the ground and it is only within the past 18 months that we have begun to have any measure of user interest. By the end of March this year, 5,314 patients had used the voucher scheme.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested, to give us a clearer picture of how effective these initiatives have been, my honourable friend Mr Paul Boateng commissioned an evaluation of both the powered wheelchair and voucher scheme initiatives. This is being conducted by the Health Economics Consortium of York University and we expect to receive its draft report next month, so I am afraid I cannot anticipate the likely conclusions in that report.
I should, however, say that we recognise that the success or otherwise of this initiative cannot be judged by uptake alone. Different wheelchair services have different populations and both demographic and socio-economic factors might well influence the number of patients who could respond to a voucher scheme. I am hopeful that the York University evaluation will help us better understand such issues. However, until that report is available and we have time to study it we would wish to reserve judgment on how successfully the wheelchair voucher scheme is operating.
That leads me to the question of a voucher scheme for users of artificial limb services. Although the Government would endorse the aim of enabling disabled people to exercise greater choice in their care, I very much agree with the points put in relation to that by noble Lords tonight. Extending the concept of a voucher scheme to other services is not necessarily the only way, or indeed the best way, of proceeding. It is not just the question of the general principle which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to. I am also aware of, and noble Lords have commented on, the media attention concerning the provision of silicone coverings for artificial limbs by a private company in Dorset. I share this House's concern about the particularly poignant stories of the young people who, quite understandably, would like to have silicone coverings which better match the profile of their remaining arm or leg. The noble Lard, Lord Rowallan, put that point very clearly.

1537
As I have said, the NHS already looks after 66,000 existing amputees and deals with about 4,000 new cases every year. We have to ensure, in relation to all these users, that the available resources are devoted to giving them a fair and consistently high standard of service.
As I have mentioned, services are currently available through 33 regional or sub-regional disablement services centres in England. Each has a contract with a manufacturer who employs a team of prosthetists and technicians to design and fit a limb which is appropriate to the clinical and functional needs of each individual patient. The contractors work within the centres and alongside other NHS professionals to ensure that a well co-ordinated service is provided.
Unlike the wheelchair industry, demand for private limbs is relatively low—I believe that fewer than 2 per cent of amputees have limbs provided privately.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Will he confirm that that low demand is possibly because people are not told of the existence of the private service? In fact, people are being positively denied the knowledge that there is such a thing as a silicone-coated limb available from the private service.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is difficult to speculate whether lack of knowledge is responsible for the relatively low take-up in the private sector. All that I can say is that it is important that as much information as possible is available to users of all NHS services. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree with that.
The point that I am trying to get across is that at the moment, if given a voucher, patients would have very limited options for exercising choice. More importantly—this point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham—there are potential disadvantages in separating the limb supply from the clinical prescription, multi-disciplinary care and long-term support given to the patient.
I have every reason to believe that the vast majority of patients receiving artificial limbs within the NHS are satisfied by the quality of care that they receive. However, I was concerned when the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, suggested that 50 per cent of limbs do not fit. We have no evidence of that, but if the noble Lord has any such evidence, we shall of course consider it. I am aware that some patients do not find their limbs comfortable, that achieving a good fit takes repeated visits to their disablement services centre, or that the appearance or functional performance of their limb is not what they would wish. Noble Lords have spoken in similar vein this evening.
That brings me to some of the questions that I have been asked about, in particular, the possibility of introducing a national service framework for disablement services. All that I can say at the moment is that the Government have already announced the
1538
first four frameworks. They will deal with mental health, coronary heart disease, older people and diabetes. It is expected that there will be one new framework per year. I cannot say any more on that, but the Government must take a number of factors and priorities into account. The views expressed tonight by noble Lords will be passed into that decision-making process.
In relation to the suggestion about a new disablement services authority, I should report to the House that my honourable friend Mr John Hutton has already given the matter some careful consideration. He has advised the charity consortium, emPOWER, that the establishment of a new disablement services authority does not fit with our model of service development. However, we understand why that has been proposed, and particularly the need for greater consistency in the provision of services for disabled people across the country.
Our preferred direction is very much through improving the quality of services, as we laid out in our White Paper, A First Class Service. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to the work of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and of the Commission for Health Improvement. It is early days to go into details about the way in which NICE, in particular, will carry out its work. However, I very much take on board the point raised by the noble Baroness about ensuring that it develops a comprehensive approach to services. I believe that it will be a very powerful mechanism for producing authoritative guidance on clinical effectiveness and, together with CHIMP, for investigating poor services and improving quality across the board. That in itself is bound to lead to greater consistency throughout the National Health Service. I also feel confident that if there are sustained problems within the artificial limbs services, the Government would wish to bring the resources of CHIMP and NICE to bear on those issues.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the biggest waste to the National Health Service is the suing of bad practice by patients?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more. The noble Baroness makes a very powerful point. As a former representative of health authorities and trusts, I am only too well aware of the cost to the NHS and its patients of malpractice suits.
Time is pressing on and I am conscious that I have not answered all the points put to me. However, I wish to comment on the question of getting people involved, because the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, raised that important matter. We are keen to ensure this. It is part of the development of a proper partnership between the NHS and its patients. The regular meetings between emPOWER and my honourable friend Mr. John Hutton is a visible sign of wishing to do that. I am also glad to be able to

1539
tell the House that the supplies group mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which is helping the NHS supplies authority to make the tendering process for artificial limb contractor services more effective and bringing together manufacturing and contractors and the staff of artificial limbs services, involves users of the service in those meetings. That is a real opportunity to bring the voice of the users right to the heart of the decision-making process in those areas. I take the point raised by the noble Lord about the potential of NHS supplies and in particular the procurement group. That should help us improve the quality of services.
1540
I am conscious that I have not touched on all the issues noble Lords raised, but I hope that it will be recognised that the Government very much take to heart the need to ensure that the undoubted improvements which have taken place in these services during the past few years continue; and that the mechanisms, particularly the use of CHIMP and NICE, should assist us in ensuring a greater consistency in the future. I do not believe that we should underestimate the achievements of the people working in those services at present, nor the courage of those who use the services.
House adjourned at seven minutes past ten o'clock.

  Claims Assessors: Legal Advice
  Claims Assessors: Legal Advice
  House of Lords Reform
  House of Lords Reform
  Employment Tribunals
  Employment Tribunals
  Libya: Aircraft Export Controls
  Libya: Aircraft Export Controls
  Iran: Arms Embargo
  Iran: Arms Embargo
  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: Fuel Embargo
  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: Fuel Embargo
  Diplomatic Missions: Outstanding Minor Traffic Violation Fines
  Diplomatic Missions: Outstanding Minor Traffic Violation Fines
  UN Register of Conventional Arms
  UN Register of Conventional Arms
  Muzaffer Ilhan Erdost
  Muzaffer Ilhan Erdost
  Oral Calislar
  Oral Calislar
  Akin Birdal
  Akin Birdal
  United Nations Panels' Recommendations
  United Nations Panels' Recommendations
  Iraq: Oil Export Ban
  Iraq: Oil Export Ban
  Iraq: Disarmament
  Iraq: Disarmament
  NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia: Civilian Casualties
  NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia: Civilian Casualties
  EU Common Foreign and Security Policy
  EU Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Iraq: Alleged Breaches of UN Sanctions
  Iraq: Alleged Breaches of UN Sanctions
  Race Relations Legislation
  Race Relations Legislation
  Police Car Siren Trials
  Police Car Siren Trials
  Police Cars: Fatal Accidents
  Police Cars: Fatal Accidents
  Emergency Police Calls: False Alarms
  Emergency Police Calls: False Alarms
  Racial Equality Commission Report
  Racial Equality Commission Report
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Complaints Audit Committee Report
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Complaints Audit Committee Report
  Renovations to Housing and VAT
  Renovations to Housing and VAT
  Royal Parks Agency Advertisement
  Royal Parks Agency Advertisement
  Peers: Declaration of Interests
  Peers: Declaration of Interests
  Common New Generation Frigate
  Common New Generation Frigate
  Nuclear Weapons: Safety and Reliability
  Nuclear Weapons: Safety and Reliability
  Assertive Outreach Teams
  Assertive Outreach Teams
  State Incapacity Benefit
  State Incapacity Benefit
  Food Standards Bill.
  Food Standards Bill.