Sitting of 15 June 1999

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

    London Underground
    Mr. Tom Brake: If he will assess the Chantrey Vellacott report into the financing costs of the public-private partnership for London Underground, a copy of which has been sent to him. [85779]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): We have assessed the note published by Chantrey Vellacott, but consider the analysis within it to be flawed.
    Mr. Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for his response, even though, having given him advance notice of my question, I had hoped for a more considered reply. I repeat the question that I asked the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time: is the extra cost of the Government's public-private partnership proposals for London Underground going to be £8 billion—yes or no?
    Mr. Prescott: The extra investment will be approximately £7 billion, but it will not be raised entirely through borrowing or through fares, so the analysis is flawed.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Given the very high commitment of public funds to private finance initiative schemes, has my right hon. Friend considered the risk that, by appraising schemes using the Treasury's discount rate of 6 per cent., a spurious impression of value for money will be created?
    Mr. Prescott: In all those projects, we are required to demonstrate value for money; the House of Commons Select Committees and the Public Accounts Committee have all made that absolutely clear. Our proposals, whether on Treasury assessment, bond financing or anything else, all have to be subject to that judgment. In my judgment, the proposals that we shall announce later will meet that requirement.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: If the first mayor of London is elected on a pledge to reject the Secretary of State's public-private partnership, what happens?
    Mr. Prescott: We have made it absolutely clear that we shall sign the deal. I am sure that the mayor of London
    138
    wants a London Underground in which there is good investment, and our proposals will provide that. I cannot think of a Labour Member of Parliament who would not want a good underground system.

    Railway Passengers
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: If he will make a statement on trends in the number of people using trains. [85780]
    The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government welcome the marked upward trend in the number of people using trains.
    Mr. Coaker: We all welcome the increase in the number of people using trains, but will my right hon. Friend do all she can to support the increased use of local trains? In particular, will she support the work of Nottinghamshire county council and Nottingham city council on the Greater Nottingham area rail development strategy, which is designed to get more local people to use local trains, rather than clogging up the city's roads as they go in and out of town?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I applaud him for raising the issue. In his area, the Robin Hood line has been greatly welcomed, but we must see that line as the beginning of the story, not the end. The use of local rail links fits in well with the Government's integrated transport strategy, so I commend the Greater Nottingham rail development strategy and look forward to its implementation.
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: I draw the Minister's attention to the figures published today by the rail franchising director on the punctuality and reliability of services. It is one thing to have increasing numbers of passengers, but those figures show that reliability and punctuality are declining among many rail providers. Is that the future of public transport and of trains under the Labour Government?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister during the rail summit: as the number of people travelling by train increases, it is important that overcrowding does not become a factor that inhibits the quality of service to passengers. When the rail franchising director considers the renegotiation of franchises that my right hon. Friend announced at the summit, such factors must be taken into account. Ultimately, it is the performance and efficiency of the rail network and the quality of the experience for passengers that are important and must be taken into account.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: May I take this opportunity to welcome my right hon. Friend to her new position? I am sure that she will do extraordinarily well. Does she agree that the increases in train patronage, constraints on road building and the escalator in taxation of polluting fuels provide a virtuous environment for private sector investment in rail infrastructure, rolling stock and track? Will she use her position to put pressure

    139
    on the industry to put greater investment into capacity, so that people can make greater use of trains in an environmentally sustainable way?
    Mrs. Liddell: Given such a gracious welcome to my position, it would be churlish of me not to agree with my hon. Friend. However, I do agree with him that it is important to improve the quality of the experience of those using public transport, so that public transport becomes a viable alternative that is both attractive and efficient. Road users and users of public transport want services to be improved, because if we ease congestion and improve public transport, everyone gains.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I join in congratulating the right hon. Lady on her appointment—although some of her colleagues could be forgiven for thinking, "No Labour Transport Ministers for 18 years and then three come along at once."
    May I admonish the right hon. Lady for having been a little coy about the dramatic 25 per cent. increase in the number of passengers using the railways since privatisation? After two years in power, and no new money, no decisions taken and no legislation, exactly what role have the Government played in that dramatic increase in the number of rail passengers? Is it not about time that the Government started taking decisions that will enable Railtrack to allocate £27 billion to investment and renewals, instead of carping against Railtrack and undermining its share price and its ability to invest?
    Mrs. Liddell: May I also take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities at the Dispatch Box? It is interesting to note that the Leader of the Opposition has split the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and that two shadow Secretaries of State are required to match up to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman talked about three Transport Ministers arriving at once. The Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), and I attended the same school, so that is perhaps a measure of the effectiveness of our education.
    Since this Government were elected, the focus on public transport has been second to none, particularly in relation to rail transport. The fragmented system that we inherited, including some quite bizarre contracts that were signed when the Conservative party was in government, has left us with the challenge of ensuring that our rail transport system is the best in the world within 10 years. At the end of the day, the passengers will decide whether to use the railways. As a new member of the Department, conscious of the achievements that have been made, I commend its work to the House.

    Concessionary Travel
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: When he expects to bring forward legislation on concessionary travel for the elderly and the retired. [85781]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Legislation to fulfil our commitment to minimum half-fare travel on buses for pensioners will be introduced
    140
    as soon as parliamentary time permits. Individual local authorities are free to adopt the proposed minimum standard in advance of legislation.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Deputy Prime Minister appreciate that, while Back Benchers and our constituents understand that the Labour Government cannot achieve everything at once—it is a question of priorities and dealing with legislative bottlenecks—there is a growing impatience among some, particularly in the conurbations where boroughs such as mine interface with London boroughs, who believe that the measure should be implemented as quickly as possible? I urge my right hon. Friend to persuade business managers to provide early legislative time so that we may have the scheme up and running long before the next general election.
    Mr. Prescott: I understand my hon. Friend's comments about the impatience in this area. We are committed to introducing the half-fare system for pensioners, which we think is right. However, there is nothing to stop any authority introducing that scheme now. I understand that the authority of Thurrock has introduced a half-rate scheme that it subjects to means testing. The difference with our scheme is that 17,000, rather than 7,000, pensioners in Thurrock would qualify for it. Some 3 million pensioners overall will benefit from the scheme.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that approximately half of local authorities are currently unable to provide the concessionary fare schemes of which the Government are in favour—partly because of the substantial costs that they would entail—can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the statutory scheme that he proposes to introduce will involve no additional cost whatsoever for any local authority in this country and that, therefore, no local authority will be required to increase council tax to pay for the right hon. Gentleman's pledge?
    Mr. Prescott: It is just not true to say that a substantial number of local authorities do not pay for some form of concessionary fares—in fact, only 10 do not and they are all Conservative or Independent councils. The total scheme will cost an extra £25 million nationally, which the Government are quite prepared to meet.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that national concessionary travel is extremely good news for pensioners. Is there similar good news for those pensioners who are former employees of the National Bus Company and whose pension fund was raided by the previous Tory Government to the tune of millions of pounds?
    Mr. Prescott: The House is well aware of the ability that my hon. Friend has demonstrated in pursuing the injustice that arose out of the privatisation of the National Bus Company, whereby many thousands of pensioners were denied hundreds of millions of pounds in pension rights. We have now concluded an agreement, and I can confirm that we have reached a settlement with the pension fund trustees which is worth £356 million to 50,000 pensioners, and the trustees will be recommending that offer to the court. That corrects an injustice that arose from the privatisation.

    Regional Airports
    Mr. John M. Taylor: If he will make a statement on the future of regional airports. [85782]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): We shall encourage the growth of regional airports to maximise the contribution that they make to local and regional economies, always consistent with sustainable development principles.
    Mr. Taylor: Would the Minister welcome and encourage the involvement of Birmingham airport, the National Exhibition Centre, Virgin and Railtrack in the development of an efficient transit system between the airport, the railway station and the exhibition centre, with the private sector in the lead? Will she pay a visit to Birmingham airport to find out what transport needs it has?
    Ms Jackson: I should be delighted to make another visit to Birmingham. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we strongly support the development of a public transport interchange, including a new people mover system. We have forwarded an application to the European Commission for trans-European network funding for phase 1 of the interchange scheme, and we expect to receive a reply in the next few months.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend hold urgent talks with the companies that are increasingly using the slots of south-east airports which enable the regional airports to use their services? They are losing their slots because they are being handed over to transatlantic flights. Will she look hard at what is happening to regional airports, because if they lose their access to the south-east, they will be badly damaged, and passengers will be very upset?
    Ms Jackson: As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the Government have been concentrating on that issue for some considerable time. We have been at the forefront in urging the European Commission, when it eventually submits its proposals for slot allocation, to make its main consideration our arguments about protecting the regions.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I hope that the Minister will not mind if I mention Manchester international airport, which is also a regional airport. Does she accept that it is essential not only to have integrated public transport to ensure that the second runway at Manchester is fully used—as I believe it will be—but that the road network feeding Manchester airport, particularly from the east, north-east and south-east, is completed if the area around the airport is not to be submerged under an unacceptable volume of commercial and domestic traffic?
    Ms Jackson: I am of course delighted to highlight the success of Manchester airport, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to congratulate the Government on their policy for our regional airports. We have ensured the relaxation of borrowing limits for those airports that have demonstrated that they are eminently capable of balancing their books, and of course Manchester is one of those airports. We have consistently made it clear that surface
    142
    access to all airports is central to their being able to operate within our requirements for sustainable development.
    Shona McIsaac: It is nice to hear my hon. Friend's warm words about Manchester airport because it has just purchased an 82 per cent. share in Humberside airport. Will she congratulate Manchester airport, particularly on its announcement of a £6 million investment in Humberside? Also, will she guarantee that regional airports will have the necessary commercial freedom to develop their capacity?
    Ms Jackson: I have already sent my congratulations to Manchester airport, and I am delighted to send them also to Humberside. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my delight in the practical application of the Government's foresight in making possible a relaxation of borrowing controls for our airports. It is another indication of the Government's long-term aim of ensuring that regional airports work together in the interests not only of their own regions, but of the entire United Kingdom.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: What progress has been made in investigating whether a public service obligation can be imposed for the provision of regional air services, particularly those between London Heathrow and Inverness?
    Ms Jackson: It is my understanding that there were fruitful discussions with representatives from Inverness. The hon. Gentleman raises an issue on which I have already touched—the importance that we attach to access from the regions to important airports in the south-east, which is why we have consistently argued to the Commission that when it eventually presents its revised proposals for slot allocation, regional factors should be at the forefront of its consideration.

    Radioactive Waste Disposal
    Dr. Ian Gibson: What plans he has for research on the disposal of radioactive waste. [85783]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Department's plans for environmental research are contained in the environmental protection group research newsletter 1999–2000, a copy of which is available in the Library. These include two projects specifically on the disposal of radioactive waste—an assessment of the long-term safety concerns that determine confidence in waste management options, and the continuation of the high-level waste and spent fuel disposal research strategy project.
    Dr. Gibson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree with the recent national consensus conference on radioactive waste management that was held in London, which reached the conclusion that there should be no further development of the nuclear industry until we learn how to deal adequately with the waste problem?
    Mr. Meacher: We certainly agree that the disposal of radioactive waste—an issue that has defeated previous Governments on a number of well-known occasions—is

    143
    a matter that needs to be resolved. For that reason, we will publish our response soon to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. We agree that there should be wide-ranging consultations before final conclusions are reached as to whether radioactive waste should be stored above ground or in deep underground repositories. Until that matter is resolved, there will continue to be serious problems for the industry.

    Beacon Council Scheme
    Mr. Martin Salter: If he will make a statement on progress in the implementation of the beacon council scheme. [85784]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We invited councils to apply for beacon status with the publication last month of the beacon council scheme application brochure. The deadline for applications is 31 July, and we anticipate announcing the first beacon councils in November.
    Mr. Salter: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. Is she aware of the enthusiasm of many forward-looking councils for the beacon council scheme?
    Mr. Stephen Pound: Not Reading!
    Mr. Salter: Well done! Indeed, Reading council is applying for beacon council status in two service areas. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that it is high time that forward-looking councils such as Reading, which are virtually Tory-free zones, had an opportunity to share their best practice with the rest of local government, and their electoral tactics with other parts of the Labour party?
    Ms Armstrong: I am delighted to hear of the enthusiasm in Reading. In response to the consultation document, only two councils—Liberal Ribble Valley and Conservative Wandsworth—opposed the beacon council scheme. The remaining 144 respondents fully supported it. Today I am arranging for the full responses to be placed in the House of Commons Library.
    Tory Wandsworth described the scheme as
    "irrationally tied in to the Government's modernisation and Best Value initiatives".
    By contrast, the Confederation of British Industry described it as
    "a mechanism by which councils can improve the services they provide and learn new ideas on how to tackle problems their communities face."
    We know that Conservatives are not interested in tackling problems in new and innovative ways, but I welcome any council that wants to do so. As my hon. Friend said, the scheme is primarily intended to spread good practice. I hope that all local councils will look at how they can learn from others and improve their service to their citizens.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister agree that, given Labour's appalling record in local government of waste, mismanagement, incompetence and downright corruption, the Government are in no position to lecture any local authority on standards of quality in local government? Does not she have to agree that the
    144
    reason the electorate up and down the country so decisively rejected Labour in the local elections recently, as they did in the European elections this week, is absolutely clear? Labour is going down to rejection by the electorate at the next general election.
    Ms Armstrong: I think that the hon. Gentleman has some way to go and a bit to learn yet. I see that he is up for sale; perhaps he can get a price that will mean that the Conservative party has a future. In the meantime, local government recognises its responsibility and, although the hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, Labour local government is considered by independent bodies such as the Audit Commission to be improving year on year. That is our target and that is what we will achieve. We will make sure that local councils are able to face the real challenges of the 21st century, and it is a pity that he is not with us on that.

    Holyhead-Crewe-Euston Rail Route
    Mr. Barry Jones: What discussions he has had on the prospects for the Holyhead-Crewe-Euston rail route; and if he will make a statement. [85785]
    The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Office of the Passenger Rail Franchising Director has had regular discussions about improving direct services on the Holyhead-Crewe-Euston route with Railtrack, Virgin West Coast, which is the current service provider, and First North Western, which has made a commitment to provide services from 2000 in addition to the services currently being provided by Virgin.
    Mr. Jones: For a generation, that service has been substandard, and quite intolerably so. What new investment, rolling stock and timetables will there be, to the benefit of north Wales users who look to the service to help to attract new industry to the area? Today, my constituency celebrates an £800 million defence contract, which will bring new, high-quality work to the area, and my Raytheon aerospace workers are grateful, but does my right hon. Friend accept that we could attract many more such projects if we had a first-class rail service?
    Mrs. Liddell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his imminent elevation to the Privy Council, which is fair recognition of his service to the House and to his constituents. The point that he raised about the Holyhead to Euston route is valid. There has been fragmentation on the route over the past 18 years, but, because of the development of the west coast main line and the services that are to be provided by Virgin West Coast and the other developers, there will be through services which will benefit the economic development of the area.
    My hon. Friend's point about the £800 million investment in his area is well taken because, as my colleagues in the Welsh Office have repeatedly said, transport infrastructure in and out of Wales and from north to south Wales is critical. I commend him for raising this matter.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Minister redouble her efforts? I ask that because a group of Japanese potential investors who recently came to north

    145
    Wales by train arrived two hours late and decided, "That's enough; we are not going to invest in north Wales." Travelling on an early train from north Wales is like playing Russian roulette—the service is appalling.
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman's point is valid. If we are to improve our economic performance, we must make sure that our transport infrastructure is second to none. The developments on the west coast main line and the spur developments coming off it are critical and, because of that, I have invited Railtrack and the Association of Train Operating Companies to see me in the next few weeks. I want to talk about issues such as that which he has raised; it is vital to all of us and to the economic performance of our country.

    Regional Assemblies
    Mr. Jim Cousins: If it is the policy of the Government to plan for directly elected regional assemblies in England. [85786]
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): We remain committed to directly elected regional government in England where there is demand for it. Meanwhile, the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom continue to be properly covered by the present organisation of the United Kingdom Government.
    Mr. Cousins: Is it not plain that once the people of regions such as the north-east, Yorkshire, the north-west and the south-west see assemblies in Wales, Scotland and, in due course, London discussing their needs and budgets with central Government, the demand for directly elected assemblies in their own regions will be very strong? It is a time for leadership; there must be leadership, and the Government must indicate clearly what plans and what sort of timetable they are considering, so that we can ask our people to support the proposals in a referendum.
    Mr. Caborn: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows the Government's position. We have set up regional development agencies, which are there to address the economic deficit that, unfortunately, exists in our English regions. We are now establishing regional chambers, which, in the main, will be in the public sector. The legislation governing regional development agencies will mean that they must cross-check with the regional chambers, and that proper consultation must take place.
    We believe that we are managing the changes involved in devolution very effectively. I hope that the RDAs and the regional chambers will gain the confidence of people in the regions, and that when those people are given an opportunity to say whether they want further devolution, they will say that they do.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: How far has the Government's enthusiasm for regional assemblies been diluted by the disastrous turnout in the European elections?
    Mr. Caborn: Not at all.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Not only is this positively my last appearance, but it must be clear to the House that this afternoon I am on borrowed time.
    146
    I am glad to take the opportunity to wish the Minister for Transport well in her new post. I also thank the Secretary of State for his generous remarks to me during the last Environment questions, and for the impeccable way in which, throughout the past year, he has observed the parliamentary procedures and courtesies. I wish him interesting encounters with my successor, who will respond to today's statement on London Transport.
    Do the Government intend a system of proportional representation to be used to elect regional assemblies? Given that, if a first-past-the-post system had been used in the recent European elections, the Labour party's performance would have been even more disastrous than it was, do not the Government face a dilemma? Would they not be better advised to abandon their ill-conceived notion of imposing on the electorate yet another reason for Labour voters not to turn out?
    Mr. Caborn: We have no reason to go back on the decisions that were made, which the British electorate supported at the 1997 general election. We will come through. We are not a "here today, gone tomorrow" party, moving around the political spectrum as some Opposition Members do. We do not know what their policies are, because they alter them from day to day, let alone from week to week. We will manage the change—a change that we believe to be in the country's interests, because it addresses both the economic and the democratic deficits.
    I wish the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) well. I think, however, that not a new face but a very old one will be taking over from her.

    Genetic Modification
    Mr. Norman Baker: What steps he is taking to ensure environmental considerations identified by his Department are recognised within the ministerial group on bio-technology and genetic modification. [85787]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Environmental considerations are at the forefront of all our decisions on genetically modified organisms. They are fully taken into account by the ministerial group on biotechnology and genetic modification.
    Mr. Baker: I hear what the Minister says, but is he aware of the fear that the new committee is being used not to strengthen the protection of the environment, but to shut down opposition from his Department in the face of the fanatically pro-GM lobby? Perhaps the isolation distance that has been eradicated has led to some cross-contamination from some of his rather less environmentally friendly colleagues.
    If the Minister is serious about the issue, which I believe him to be, will he arrange for the publication in full of the minutes of the sinister biotechnology presentation group, along with its remit? Does he accept that, until that is done, the Government have no credibility in this regard?
    Mr. Meacher: We have made it very clear that we wish to be wholly transparent in the manner in which we deal with the issue. We realise that public opinion is seriously concerned about it—very seriously concerned—

    147
    and, indeed, highly polarised. The Government are trying to advance the prospects of the technology, which is certainly important and has potential consumer benefits, in a manner that secures that any risk with regard to the human food chain or the environment is fully taken into account.
    The biotechnology and genetic modification Cabinet sub-committee looks at all the evidence. We have openly published almost all the evidence that has been before us. We know that the only way to restore public confidence is by being completely open.
    Joan Ruddock: Further to that reply, my right hon. Friend will be aware of reports of the indirect effects of genetically modified crops on organisms such as lacewings and the larvae of monarch butterflies. Has the committee received, or will it receive, such reports? Have the Government commissioned their own laboratory research into such indirect effects?
    Mr. Meacher: My Department's committee, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, certainly watches very carefully international research on the issue, particularly with regard to lacewings and the monarch butterfly. Recently, the chairman of ACRE made it clear that it is looking at the full implications, particularly for the latter. However, it was a laboratory study and we need to take account of UK environmental conditions. In addition, the BT—bacillus thuringiensis—maize, the plant concerned in the experiment, is not released in the UK either commercially or experimentally; but we are looking at what are serious scientific results which may have a major effect for the future.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: What measures has the Secretary of State taken to ensure that the resulting products of farm-scale trials of GM foods do not contaminate the environment?
    Mr. Meacher: That is the purpose of the farm-scale evaluations. Over several years, there have been several hundred—I think 600 to 700—small trial plantings of GM crops in this country, but to examine the impact on the environment generally, it is necessary to advance those to farm scale. That is why, this year, we have seven to nine fields which will be planted with oilseed rape and maize and, next year, 20 to 25. We want to get a nationally representative sample, precisely so that we will be able to see the impact that GM crops, as compared with non-GM crops, have on the environment, on invertebrates, on field margins, on insects and on bird populations. Again, we will do that completely openly with independent research contractors and an independent scientific review committee. We will make clear the evidence wholly and transparently before we reach a conclusion.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: How many representations he has received during the last 12 months (a) in favour of and (b) against the development of genetically modified crops. [85788]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): During the past 12 months, about 4,000 letters have been received. Almost all expressed concerns on various aspects of genetically modified crops.
    Mr. Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his sober and rational response to the article by Prince Charles
    148
    on 2 June containing his 10 questions. Those are the very questions that the general public want answered. Why are GM foods necessary? In view of the enormous public concern and hostility to these technologies, do we really need GM foods?
    Mr. Meacher: The honest answer is that we do not need GM foods, but the technology has some potential benefits. It enables products to have a longer shelf life and to be able to withstand saline or dry conditions in developing countries. There may well be additional benefits that are not yet known. However, we need to be extremely careful in developing the technology to ensure that there is no damage to the food chain or the environment. That is why I have made it clear that we will not allow commercial planting of GM crops until the Government have completed the farm-scale evaluations and have sufficient evidence to reach an authoritative judgment about the impact on the environment.
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: Given the level of alarm that the Minister has expressed, given the fact that people are starving in the world not because of a shortage of food but because of distribution problems, and given the environmental risks that we must inevitably be taking, does the Minister agree that there is no rush to develop these foods?
    Mr. Meacher: Indeed, I have made it clear that we will not be rushed into an early decision. I repeat that it would be wrong in my view and that of the Government to turn our back on this technology. It has mainly producer benefits at present but it could have some significant consumer benefits in the long run. However, we should not be stampeded by industrial or commercial interests to take a decision in favour of this technology until we know—and can produce the evidence for everyone to look at—that it is wholly safe.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: My right hon. Friend will have received representations from Monmouthshire about applications to grow genetically modified crops in the area. One of the major concerns has been expressed by organic farmers. What assurance can the Minister give me that there will be no cross-contamination for organic producers?
    Mr. Meacher: That is an important issue to which the Government are giving great attention. There have been discussions with organic farmer representatives at official level in my Department and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They are, quite rightly, concerned that their organic products should not be cross-contaminated. The Government wish to protect their interests and to see an increase in organic products in this country because consumer demand is considerably in excess of domestic supply, with consequential balance of payments problems.
    The issue is largely one of isolation distances, about which there has been considerable public controversy. Indeed, in regard to the Lushill farm, the Soil Association recently changed its view about the adequacy of isolation distances for oilseed rape, from 200 m to six miles. Thus there needs to be a good deal of further discussion between representatives of GM crop growers and organic farmers in order to try to reach an acceptable accommodation that protects the interests of both.

    Lead Shot
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What representations he has received regarding his proposed regulations on the use of lead shot. [85789]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): As of 27 May 1999 my Department has received a total of approximately 400 representations on the proposed regulations on the use of lead shot. My officials are currently analysing the responses.
    Mr. Swayne: The Minister will be aware of the diminution of liberty that has arisen over recent years as a consequence of the raft of officials who now have access to our homes. Will he play his part in turning that tide by amending the regulations so that they are enforceable only by properly authorised police officers? Will he also consider removing from the species list the common snipe and the golden plover, and consider whether there are sites of special scientific interest that are not entirely appropriate for the regulations and remove them from the sites list?
    Mr. Meale: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I remind him that, for a long time, the Prime Minister has led a better regulation committee. I can confirm that it is the Government's intention that the main enforcing authority for such regulations would be the police. Along with the outcome of the consultations, all the hon. Gentleman's representations, which have been made not only today but previously in writing, will be considered in due course.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Minister met the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on the matter? If so, what was the outcome?
    Mr. Meale: I am currently not at liberty to inform my hon. Friend of the outcome, but I give a commitment to reply to him in writing.

    Vacant Dwellings
    Sir Michael Spicer: If he will list the number of vacant dwellings in (a) the public and (b) the private sector. [85790]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Latest estimates, at 1 April 1998, are that there were 100,700 vacant dwellings in the public sector, and 652,500 in the private sector.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Why cannot more be done to use existing housing stock, rather than building excessively on green-field land?
    Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman has for some time sought to keep a close eye on the matter. As he will have heard, the majority of vacant properties are in the private sector. Most of those properties are vacant for only a short time, while people are seeking to move. However, we are very carefully examining the matter of void properties, as we realise that it is a problem.
    150
    In recent years, however, before the Government were elected, the absolute neglect of council housing was the real problem in public sector housing. The consequence of that neglect has, of course, been a decline in the standard of council housing. The English house condition survey, for the first time since it began, identified a decline in the condition of council housing—which was the result of no investment in, or repairs to, council housing. The Government are tackling that problem, and have provided almost £5 billion to do so. We are determined to get a decent home for everyone.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that Burnley has one the highest percentages of unoccupied private sector properties in the whole of England, and that that is one of the reasons why it has a residual debt problem in housing stock transfers. Is it not crucial that that problem be solved, so that a ballot can be held, and Burnley borough council will be able to tackle the private sector housing problem—which is largely the result of the previous Government's actions?
    Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend tells a story that the previous Administration always refused even to consider, just as they refused to admit the consequences of their actions. The Government are determined that, in every area, we shall be able to ensure a proper housing supply to meet local people's demands and needs. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are actively examining the problem of overhanging debt in transfers, and that we are determined to find a way forward. I only wish that that work could have started much earlier.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: I thank the Minister for giving those figures, which she was woefully unable to give recently in Committee. Does she agree with the recent Shelter report, entitled "No excuse not to build", which says that there are very large regional imbalances in housing vacancy rates and concludes that
    "current housing and planning policies are failing to provide sufficient good quality affordable homes to meet need"?
    If she agrees with it, what will she do about it?
    Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman needs to consult the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), who was making a very different argument. There is—although it was never admitted before the general election—a highly variable pattern of housing across the United Kingdom. In several parts of the country, there was no attempt to increase economic activity; consequently, there were simply too many houses. The Government are taking action not only on increasing regional economic activity, but on examining the real problem of low housing demand in some parts of the country.
    I only wish that that work had begun earlier. We are determined to ensure that houses are used effectively and efficiently, but we must also ensure that each region has the right accommodation to meet the needs of the people who live there so that everyone in the community has a secure, stable home.

    New Deal (Communities)
    Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: What progress has been made to date in the implementation of the new deal for communities. [85791]
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): Our new deal for communities has given 17 pathfinder partnerships in some of our most deprived neighbourhoods the opportunity to tackle the deep-rooted problems of social exclusion that were left us by the previous Administration. We shall continue to support those community-based partnerships as they develop plans to deliver lasting and sustainable change.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I can confirm the good progress of the pathfinder scheme in the Woodlands estate in West Ham, having discussed the matter with constituents such as Liz Ayres. The London borough of Newham, which is a key partner, is very pleased with the initiative so far. When is the programme likely to be rolled out to other communities?
    Mr. Caborn: Of the 17 partnerships, 10 went straight to the first phase of the new deal for communities. They are developing long-term strategies. The other seven were asked to go back and do further work. I hope that we shall be able to make some announcements early next week. From what I have seen, they are all making positive progress. We are considering rolling out a further programme, possibly later this year.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the Minister looked at councils such as Weymouth, which was Labour-controlled until the party lost control at the local elections? The Government have consistently denied funds to areas such as Weymouth, although we have social problems as well, whereas the inner cities get additional central Government funds even though they do not spend up to their standard spending assessment. Surely that is unfair and very stupid, particularly as Labour is losing seats in all the local councils in the south-west and would have lost every seat in the south-west if there had been a general election last Thursday.
    Mr. Caborn: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman distracted attention from the main point of his question about Weymouth, to which he did not do justice. We are dealing with sustainable regeneration by looking at all the pots of money that are available, including the new deal for communities and the single regeneration budget, which was 20 per cent. top-sliced to ensure that it could be targeted on areas outside the inner cities such as the coalfield communities, rural communities and some coastal towns which are suffering genuine deprivation.
    The previous Administration left that situation for us to tackle. We are tackling it systematically—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Gentleman like me to answer the question? Each region is introducing strategies to deal with regeneration sustainably.

    Railway Station Parking
    Mr. David Lock: If he will take steps to encourage the provision of free car parking at railway stations. [85793]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): Charges for car parking at railway stations are a matter for Railtrack and the train operating companies. However, we encourage Railtrack and the train operating companies to provide facilities at their stations to allow safe and easy access for all passengers.
    Mr. Lock: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that car parking charges imposed by train operating companies have an effect on the residents of adjoining streets? Those charges can generate considerable revenue, which the train operating companies should invest in facilities for travellers and those affected by their policies rather than simply treating travellers as a captive audience for generating money to go straight on to their bottom line.
    Ms Jackson: Car parking standards and charges are not covered in current franchise agreements but we are clear that good interchange has a vital role to play in improving public transport. Our integrated transport White Paper made clear its importance for promoting integrated transport and minimising disruption and inconvenience to users. In preparing their transport plans, local authorities undertake an interchange audit to assess such facilities.

    Road Noise
    Mr. Andrew Hunter: If he will make a statement on his policy for reducing noise from motorways and other trunk roads. [85794]
    The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell): We have established a policy of using quieter surfaces where appropriate in resurfacing trunk roads. We have set up an annual budget of £5 million to deal with some of the most serious cases of noise from existing roads. Sift criteria to identify cases meriting further study were announced on 22 March.
    Mr. Hunter: Will the Minister confirm that when the M3 in the vicinity of Basingstoke requires resurfacing the most effective noise-reducing surface will be used, and that that stretch of road also qualifies for spending under the Government's £5 million a year ring-fenced budget for noise reduction?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue on many occasions over a number of years, and I commend him for that. As he will know, a study is being undertaken into noise along the M3. I expect the results of that study probably before the end of July, which will allow me to make a decision on what further action may be necessary. The sift criteria have been eased so that it is more likely that more noise-limiting measures can be introduced, but it is really a matter for technical evaluation.
    Mr. David Drew: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the interest that she has taken in this matter,

    153
    especially in relation to the area of Upton St. Leonards on the M5 in my constituency, where there is a particular problem. Will she consider publishing the sift analysis so that we know exactly what the problems are and can consider the pecking order in which they should be dealt with?
    Mrs. Liddell: The announcement on Monday 22 March 1999 set out many of the criteria on noise levels immediately adjacent to the road. The 1998 level is an average 80 decibels. We need an idea of the scale of the problems throughout the country so that we can prioritise how to spend the ring-fenced money to ensure that people's lives are made easier by reducing the worst road noise and its effects on local communities.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Is the Minister aware that major road improvements lead to an increase in traffic which often spills over into other local roads? Last week I was at a well-attended meeting in the village of Compton in my constituency. People told me about the problems that had been caused by the vast increase in the volume of traffic resulting from the building of the connection with the M3 up the road. Is she aware that noise reduction measures in such villages can make a major improvement in people's lives? Given the extra £10 billion in taxation being extracted by the Government from the British motorist, cannot she increase the size of the fund for noise reduction measures?
    Mrs. Liddell: Considering that the amount available for noise reduction measures is much more than was made available by the previous Government, and that the criteria have been changed to ensure that more roads are eligible for such assistance, that comment is rather rich coming from the hon. Gentleman. I do not underestimate the inconvenience caused by noise on roads. Local authority roads are not a matter for me directly, but the Government are aware of the difficulties that people can
    154
    experience, and indeed of the measures that can be taken to mitigate noise. That is why we have ring-fenced the money and taken an especial interest in the matter.

    National Land Use Database
    Mr. Harold Best: If he will report on progress on the creation of a national land use database, with particular reference to Yorkshire and Humberside. [85795]
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): Provisional results from the first phase of the national land use database were published on 20 May. They show an estimated 33,000 hectares of previously developed vacant and derelict land in England in 1998, of which about 6,500 hectares was in Yorkshire and Humberside. More detailed results are available in a Government Statistical Service information bulletin, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. My Department will work with local authorities and others to develop a system to keep the information up to date and to expand the scope of the database to encompass all land uses.
    Mr. Best: Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities should be advised about the need to ensure that the land bank is made available as rapidly as possible, rather than using green-field sites?
    Mr. Caborn: That is a decision for the local authorities, although there is nothing constraining them. At least when this Government came to power we got the basic statistics right and found out how much brown-field land was available for building—that is what the database is all about. Unfortunately, it was a somewhat fatuous debate when the Conservatives were in power, because they did not have that basic information to hand for the local authorities.

London Underground
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about London Underground.
London Underground is part of the lifeblood of London, and indeed the whole country, carrying 850 million passengers each year. For too many years, however, under different Governments and even under the Greater London council, investment in the underground has been inadequate to secure a modern, reliable underground system. As I explained to the House last year, we inherited an investment backlog of £1.2 billion. We intend to modernise the underground through a £7 billion public-private partnership which will bring long-term stability to the investment programme.
Train and station services will continue to be operated by a publicly owned, publicly accountable London Underground. However, in order to raise long-term finance, we will invite private companies to take responsibility for upgrading the infrastructure, including the track, tunnels, signals, escalators and trains. That would, however, be for a limited period only, after which the upgraded assets would return to the public sector.
That means that for the first time in living memory London Transport will know what it can spend on investment for years to come. Until now, London Transport investment plans have been approved in theory for a three-year period; in practice, they were chopped and changed every year, as in the savage cuts imposed on London Underground investment in the last year of the previous Administration. I cannot over-estimate to the House the value of being able to plan ahead in that way and to secure greater productivity in the use of capital. It will mean the travelling public—and London Underground employees—will get more reliable, better quality investment, delivered far more efficiently and cost-effectively.
Over the past year, London Transport has been laying the foundations for the public-private partnership. We have restructured the LT board, with Sir Malcolm Bates as chairman, Denis Tunnicliffe as the chief executive, and Derek Smith as the managing director of the underground. New board members with substantial financial and other experience will be announced shortly.
London Underground is creating within itself three infrastructure companies as well as the operating company which will remain in the public sector throughout, and will be made properly accountable to Londoners through their new elected assembly and mayor.
I am pleased to announce that London Transport is, today, inviting companies to pre-qualify as bidders to invest in the underground. Bidders will need to demonstrate the right mix of professional and project management skills and to harness the finance needed to take the tube into the 21st century.
Some concern has been expressed about the time needed to get to this point. I can assure the House that we do not intend to repeat the mistakes made by the previous Administration in planning the Jubilee line extension—now more than £1 billion over budget—the money wasted in British Rail privatisation, which amounted to billions
156
of pounds, or the channel tunnel rail link deal, which we had to rescue from financial collapse. We decided to take the time to get it right and to protect the interests of the taxpayer.
In the autumn, selected bidders will be invited to submit tenders, based on a rigorous performance and payment system. For passengers, that will mean fewer delays, greater capacity and a higher quality of service. The Health and Safety Commission has been fully involved because safety is, of course, a top priority. We are aware of considerable interest in the market so we have good reason to expect keenly priced bids. However, as I have made clear before, we will not contemplate deals being done if they do not offer best value to the taxpayer.
For many years I have advocated linking the national railway with the underground to make it easier for the public to travel to, from, within and across London. I have therefore decided to allow London Transport to explore with Railtrack a way of linking the national rail network to the sub-surface lines in a public-private partnership under which Railtrack would undertake and finance the maintenance and upgrading of the sub-surface lines for London Underground, under contract to London Underground, and Railtrack would build links between the underground and the national rail lines.
This London link plan opens up exciting new possibilities for integration between surface and underground rail, providing fast new connections between all the major transport hubs, including London's five airports and the channel tunnel rail link terminals—a true example of a modern, integrated transport system. In particular, new services could run directly from Heathrow in the west into the City, connected to the channel tunnel link, and from Brighton via London Gatwick and east London to north London and beyond. Once these are in place, all five London airports—including Stansted, Luton and City airport—will have direct rail links into and through London, all connecting with the channel tunnel rail link. The plan will deliver a joined-up London—real integration for a world-class city.
There has been considerable speculation about a possible Railtrack takeover of the tube. That has never been part of our thinking. Unlike the Conservative party, we reject the approach based on selling off everything in sight quickly and then hoping for the best.
Railtrack has confirmed, and will announce, that it will not seek to pre-qualify for the two deep-tube public-private partnership competitions. Let me make it clear that throughout the negotiations we will impose rigorous conditions. Railtrack will have to improve on its previous record, especially on project management.
The vast majority of London Transport staff serve the public well, often suffering the same frustrations with an ageing infrastructure that passengers experience. I should like to place on record our appreciation for staff members' efforts, and to reassure them of two things. First, they will benefit more than most by having an upgraded system with a secure investment programme for years to come. Nothing could be worse for London Transport staff than to leave the underground to deteriorate further.
Secondly, I reiterate the assurances that I gave last year on employment rights, concessionary fares and pensions. People have welcomed the guarantees given to staff who transfer to a London Underground infrastructure company, but they ask what will happen to those who

157
transfer to a sub-contractor. I can confirm today that the concessionary travel and pension arrangements also apply to any current LU staff members who subsequently transfer to a sub-contractor, provided that they remain in tube work. We will take the necessary steps to ensure that.
London is withstanding severe competitive pressure. We are determined that it should remain the premier city in Europe as we enter the new millennium. Investing in a world-class transport system is a vital element of the plans. We are already expanding the public transport network. By the end of 1999, London will have four major additions to its transport network—a new riverbus service, the full Jubilee line extension, the Croydon tramlink and the docklands light railway extension. From next year, the mayor of London will be able to build a properly integrated transport strategy for London.
At the end of the previous century, the London underground was the world's first metropolitan railway. During this century, it expanded, enabling London to grow as a great capital city. Our aim, as we enter the 21st century, is to ensure that London remains a global city with a world-class transport system.
The public-private partnership will bring £7 billion to modernise the tube. It will get away from stop-go investment and improve the quality of service for passengers. By exploring the imaginative London-link plan of through-running surface railways and sub-surface tube lines, London can look forward to a genuinely joined-up transport system. That is no less than Londoners deserve.
Mr. John Redwood: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement. It was less joined up than muddled up, but welcome none the less, as it gives us a chance to ask some questions about the real issues facing London transport.
With your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), and her team, who fought valiantly against the follies of the Government's transport policy. I welcome my new team and congratulate my new shadow Cabinet colleague. We regard transport as sufficiently important to deserve full shadow Cabinet status within the framework of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
I have some advice for the Deputy Prime Minister. The man people outside the House like to call "two Jags John" should try to keep both cars and the chauffeur. This statement means continuing delays and chaos on the underground. Once high-living Ministers discovered that there was no first-class accommodation on the tube, they put their policy on ice for a couple of years.
Mr. Tony McNulty: When did the right hon. Gentleman last travel on the tube?
Mr. Redwood: I regularly travel on the tube, unlike the Deputy Prime Minister, who uses it only for photo opportunities and takes his Jaguar along to pick him up when the going gets sticky. He showed his lack of touch on the tube when he tried to push around a ticket machine. The statement shows that he is no more successful when he tries to push the whole railway system around.
158
Does the Deputy Prime Minister know that his two-year delay in designing a new policy for the underground has made matters a lot worse for all those who travel from High Barnet to Morden, from Ealing Broadway to Epping or to and from many other stops on the tube? Does he realise that since he took over from the Conservatives, service quality has plummeted, cancellations and delays are the order of the day and investment has been savaged?
We all remember Labour's promises. Before May 1997 a tube train broke down once every 21 minutes. That was not nearly good enough, so we proposed privatisation and a big injection of new money. After two years of new Labour, a tube train breaks down once every 16 minutes, and the Government have cut the investment. They dared to tell Londoners that things could only get better. They have got a great deal worse.
Over the final 10 years of Conservative Government, we made steady investment in the tube system—[Laugher.] Labour Members should read the figures; the Labour Government are spending a quarter less than was being spent when they came to power, while they should have been spending more. The Government have cancelled privatisation, and there is a great hole in the accounts. No one knows where the extra money will come from or even whether the tube can keep going. I pay tribute to the staff who struggle to do well in extremely difficult circumstances without any clear policy or any decent investment. Far from giving managers certainty, the Government have left them in the dark.
The Secretary of State has pulled off an almost impossible treble. The unions are against him, the Treasury is against him and most of the potential bidders are also opposed to his scheme. Everyone has told him that franchises should be longer than 15 years, but he knows best. He will not achieve good value for money for the taxpayer. Does he realise that there is a huge gap between the expectations that Labour aroused before the election and the reality of public transport since then?
Mr. McNulty: Mind the gap.
Mr. Redwood: Labour Members understand that much, at least. The Secretary of State should mind the gap. He has certainly failed to mind the shop.
How many extra services will the Deputy Prime Minister pledge to introduce? How many new train sets will be available over the next two years? When will the rate of breakdowns return to the level that he inherited from the Conservatives? The rate is now much higher. What will be the extra burden on taxpayers as a result of his policy? What will happen if the new mayor disagrees with his plans?
When will the Railtrack heads of agreement become a binding contract? What guarantee will the Deputy Prime Minister secure regarding responsibility for safety? Does he regret saying that a fragmented railway would be a less safe railway, now that he has decided to fragment it himself? What is his new, and delayed, timetable for the proposals? Is there any hope of their introduction before the next general election, or will he go to the public having done nothing to improve the tube?
What can the Deputy Prime Minister say to reassure Londoners about future fare levels? How does he explain his change of heart about Railtrack? He used to condemn it, he threatened to re-nationalise it and now he wants to give it a bye into the next bidding round without any competition.

159
The Deputy Prime Minister rants and raves about the private rail companies but he has no idea how to run a railway. Few people want to buy a second-hand railway from him. His transport policy is to clobber the motorist, bankrupt the haulier, invite in the foreign lorry, put a bus lane on the M4 so that traffic can tail back to the M25 and give us Hobson's choice on public transport. Today's statement is another milestone along the traffic jam that passes for Labour's transport policy. How will that policy work, and what can the Deputy Prime Minister do to make it better?
Mr. Prescott: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and welcome him to his new role as the shadow spokesman on the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I hope that he will eventually begin to learn the facts of his case—it is a little early for him to understand them now. I also hope that working with the environment will bring him more in touch with planet earth.
May I also express my appreciation for the kind remarks of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). I will certainly miss her friendly face and, at times, her cutting tongue. She will be sadly missed from the Front Bench. She feared that she would be replaced by a face that was younger or fresher—I am not so sure that that has been achieved.
The right hon. Gentleman pointed out a catalogue of disasters on the underground. He is right. There are delays, considerable problems and breakdowns. However, 18 years of disinvestment in the underground to the extent of £1.2 billion would affect the quality of the service. If he is not sure about that £1.2 billion disinvestment in 18 years, I must point out that in the last year of the previous Administration £360 million was cut from investment in the underground. How the right hon. Gentleman has the cheek to come to the House and lecture us about the quality of a railway system in which the previous Government massively disinvested, and which had no future and no possibility of securing investment, I do not know.
In the two years that I have been in this job, I have reorganised the underground system. While I was doing so, I was also renegotiating the deal for the channel tunnel rail link, which had collapsed under the previous Administration. We were being asked for £1 billion more. I renegotiated and arranged new bond financing and it did not cost us a penny more. That is the difference in approach, in detail and in fact, of this Government, and we have produced a good system.
We are now embarked on the process that I described, which will keep the system publicly owned and publicly accountable because we do not believe in a privatised system. That is what we are doing in the three proposed contracts and our work with Railtrack. I well understand Railtrack's difficulties. It was not given any regulatory control and has been free to do whatever it likes—in the main, to make an awful lot of profit—because the previous Administration put no controls on it. Railtrack has made millions of pounds at the taxpayer's expense.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What are you going to do?
Mr. Prescott: I am just about to tell the hon. Gentleman. He may have entered the shadow Cabinet, but
160
he should not get too keen at this stage. He will find that I negotiated another deal for the channel tunnel rail link, which involved Railtrack, but I ensured that the controls and contracts were tight enough to ensure that we achieved 10 per cent. completion ahead of time and on budget. I wish that I could have done that with the Jubilee line, for which the previous Administration were responsible.
During the past two years I have had to deal with all those problems. I have come to the conclusion that this is the best way forward. It will bring about the investment that we are agreed needs to be put into the transport system. However, I have suggested much more. I have offered a vision of integration—the connection of transport systems—to make London a truly global city at the transport hub of Europe and the world. That is the vision that one needs for transport and that is what I am embarked on.
Frankly, many of the questions that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) posed he almost answered himself. He is not in tune with the facts—although I will allow him a little more time to study them, as he has only just entered the job.
I shall give one quick example. The right hon. Gentleman should not rely on what he reads in the press for information; he should go and find out. He mentioned the M4 bus priority lane and all the talk of tailbacks. Last Friday, I did the journey myself to find out what was happening. I did the journey right through the so-called tailbacks—
Mr. Redwood: What time of day?
Mr. Prescott: At 8.00 am. I did 15 miles in 15 minutes. That does not sound like congestion to me. The buses were going faster and offering—[HON. MEMBERS: "In the wrong lane."] No, no. In exactly those lanes. As I understand it, the Highways Agency has also made it clear that the effect on motorists is neutral. I would say, "Find out for yourself instead of relying on the press and we will get a better-quality transport debate."
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware that investment in London Underground is so disastrously overdue that what he has proposed will be regarded as an enormous step forward. The neglect of the previous Government was both criminal and shameful. My right hon. Friend's decisions on the staff will be warmly welcomed by those who believe that we cannot run a railway system without the men and women who are fundamental to its operation. They must have faith and certain assurances before they are able to fulfil their task to the best of their ability. However, he will be aware that Railtrack has an extremely poor record of fulfilling its investment obligations. There is no point trying to hide the fact that the company makes large sums of money, and does not carry out what it has promised. I warmly welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend is keeping the assets in state hands, but there will be reservations about Railtrack, and a demand for tight and constant monitoring. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the project will not be left entirely to a management who are already beginning to whinge about

161
their share price, even though many of us believe that they are already making outrageous profits out of the taxpayer, with little to show in return?
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. She makes sound points about transport and about the workers in that industry—indeed I have constantly given those workers assurances about guaranteeing their pensions. I had to do so because, under many of the privatisations, people were robbed of their pensions. In respect of one privatisation by the previous Administration—that of the National Bus Company—I have already announced to the House that it has now cost the taxpayer about £360 million to compensate for the injustice that was perpetrated on those people. That is why I have had to spend so much time reassuring people about their employment rights.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about Railtrack. I agree that there has been more concern over share prices than over the level of investment in the industry. That point was made by the regulator appointed by the previous Administration. I now have a tougher regulator; furthermore, a different regulator will be appointed for the underground. We intend to have public accountability for public money; that is what we shall do in order to secure investment.
Mr. Tom Brake: I listened to the Secretary of State's statement with interest, awaiting new information about the public-private partnership, but there was none. There was merely a restatement of past investment plans. I have several questions that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer. If there is further delay to the PPP plans, what allowance has he made for the extra finance that will be required to ensure that maintenance and investment continue? At what point will he show that the public-private partnership is best value, and will he use the public sector comparator to do that? Are the Government holding discussions with other consortiums—which could, of course, include Railtrack—about the possible integration between the national rail network and the sub-surface lines to which he has referred? Will there be competition, or is only Railtrack in the running? What level of fines does he plan to impose on Railtrack, if it performs badly? Finally, is it with a sense of dread or of pride that he proposes to hand over part of London Underground to Railtrack?
Mr. Prescott: In relation to investment and any possible delays that may occur in the completion of the contracts, of course investment will be kept up. We showed that when we came into office by finding about £360 million to reverse the cuts that had been made. [Interruption.] That was during our first two years. We said, therefore, that, when the contracts were negotiated, we would consider meeting some of the investment from a public-private partnership. One of the purposes of my statement today was—as I said—to announce that I am embarking on inviting bids for those three PPPs, and that is what we are doing. Any resources needed to maintain the level of investment will therefore be met. That is our obligation.
In relation to the use of the public sector comparator, as a member of the Transport Sub-Committee, the hon. Gentleman is aware that that is our commitment; we have
162
to show value for money and we shall use that practice. However, we cannot do that until we get the deal and we shall not get the deal for a little while—I suppose that is only logical. When we have completed the negotiations, we shall be forced to make the comparison—we have to do that. That is value for money, using the best-value principle to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We can reassure the Sub-Committee about that.
As for Railtrack and the investment deal, it is a unique deal between Railtrack and London Underground, both of which own the tracks that are involved. We have given them an opportunity to combine those tracks in a unique way.
We shall start the negotiations now, and we hope to achieve heads of agreement by autumn. Then, if the deal satisfies the tests that the hon. Gentleman wishes to apply, or we achieve what we consider to be value for money or our objectives of integration, we shall proceed. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall keep the House informed of progress.
Joan Ruddock: As one who joined my right hon. Friend on the shadow transport team all of 10 years ago, I can testify to his long-term commitment to the London link line, as he described it today. Can he confirm, in the interests of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends representing south London, that when that vision is brought forth, there will be an extension of the East London line from New Cross Gate to Croydon?
Mr. Prescott: I recall the occasion on which my hon. Friend and I worked together on that team and mapped out the M25, then known as the orbital link, which required the building of a new section of the East London line. I am pleased to say that that is exactly what the proposals I have announced today will do and that the connection she suggests will be made. For the first time, we shall have an orbital link around London and a line that is as close to a cross-London link as we are likely to achieve in the immediate future.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Given the Government's disarray on the subject of the underground during the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill, may we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Government's confidence in the outcome is now such that they will be prepared to subject themselves to the most vivid litmus test of all—a debate on the underground in Government time, rather than in Opposition time?
Mr. Prescott: From beside me comes the whisper, "Not yet." There are many competing claims on the time of the House, but I understand that there is to be an Adjournment debate tomorrow on the very subject of connecting London's surface and sub-surface lines. I believe that that debate is to be introduced by a Labour Member representing London.
Mr. Harry Cohen: I warmly welcome the long overdue investment and the links between London's surface and underground lines, but can my right hon. Friend tell me where the public element of the public-private partnership is to come from? Will there be any public subsidy for the operations of London

163
Underground next year and beyond? If not, and if that money were to come from higher fares or congestion charging, which would restrict the freedom of action of the future London mayor, does my right hon. Friend recognise that that would be unsatisfactory? When will we hear further details of the public element of the PPP?
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend will be aware from his experience of the activities of the Greater London council that there have always been great restrictions on fares and investment policy; and that the GLC was unable to find the resources necessary for investment, even though fares continued to increase. We need to get the finances of the underground onto a proper footing. The system is publicly owned; we are mortgaging the assets and those assets will return to public ownership, so there is public accountability.
The judgment to be made is on the balance between the income derived from fares and investment. That will be the subject of negotiations on the PPPs and a matter for the mayor during the final stages of that process and when the system is in operation. I do not suppose for one moment that there will not be further demand for new underground investment—I am talking only about existing links. Judgments will have to be made about whether public money is to be used for investment or whether that money will have to come from fares. To be frank, I do not think that all the money can come from fares; there will have to be some public money involved in investment.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: My constituents will be disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has made yet another statement on the future of the underground without announcing that there is to be full privatisation. This afternoon, he has said yet again that the Government do not believe in privatisation. Perhaps he does not realise that he is being rather—you might not allow me to use the word "hypocritical" Madam Speaker. I see that you will not, so I shall say instead that the right hon. Gentleman is being inconsistent when he says that he does not believe in privatisation. Does he not realise that Railtrack, on which the proposals he has announced this afternoon depend, would not even exist had it not been for the successful privatisation of British Rail carried out by the Conservative Government?
Mr. Prescott: Perhaps I could help the hon. Lady with her difficulty with descriptions. I understand that she was an adviser to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) when he was the Secretary of State for Transport in the previous Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Distinguished".] He may have been distinguished, but he did not have too many facts about rail privatisation. The stupid ideas then proposed cost the taxpayer millions of pounds, and I am having to deal with the problems that they caused.
It is a bit much for the hon. Lady—who entered Parliament at the last election—to tell us what should be done to improve rail transport. I do not know what she said during the election campaign, but everybody else thought that the privatised railway lacked investment and
164
was failing, as was Railtrack. We are seeking to change that situation, and hon. Members will be able to measure our success by the next election.
Mr. John Cryer: I welcome increased investment in the tube, which is badly needed. What kind of return on that investment does my right hon. Friend envisage the private sector will look for over 15 years?
Mr. Prescott: It will depend on the bids made by different companies. It is argued that, because of its circumstances, Railtrack can borrow much more cheaply than other companies. That is one difference between the different bids and it is one of the reasons why I am glad that Railtrack has agreed not to bid for the deep lines. If it had bid, there would have been a deficit of interest.
Mr. Jenkin: Who wants it?
Mr. Prescott: The signs are clear and stories in today's papers suggest that companies will be pleased to bid. However, I must wait and see. I have announced the pre-qualifying period and, as to the rates of return—which vary between companies—I will wait and see what terms I am offered. Competition will have an effect on those rates, and I will take that into account.
Mr. Edward Davey: In his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), the right hon. Gentlemen said that he could guarantee investment in London Underground from April next year. Has he talked to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about that? If so, what sorts of sums will come from the public purse to ensure that that investment continues?
Mr. Prescott: The first sum from the public purse was the £360 million—
Mr. Davey: Answer the question.
Mr. Prescott: Yes, I am in touch with the Chancellor. We have already announced the investment over the three-year programme. It is true that a year with zero subsidy had been envisaged because we hoped that some of the contracts would be completed before the Greater London Authority is established. We are not prepared to step back and say that that will be a zero funding period, but I am negotiating on PPP contracts at present and we will look for investment. As with the channel tunnel rail link, we may be able to spread investment over time. That is a matter for negotiation, but the House may be assured that there will be investment during that period.
Mr. Clive Efford: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and draw his attention to the fact that, beyond the Jubilee line extension and the docklands light railway, my constituents and those in surrounding areas do not have direct access to London Underground. They rely primarily on Network SouthEast to commute to and from central London. Further to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the potential that the East London line has to extend to North Kent lines rather than westward

165
to Croydon? That would provide a direct link to London Underground in central London for people in south-east London.
Mr. Prescott: I have often asked how we can make the existing infrastructure work more effectively. Sometimes it is a matter of filling in the gaps. There was mention of "mind the gap"; but "bridge the gap" is important for rail infrastructure. We are considering different ways of achieving that.
I have united the national railway and underground systems for the first time, which will create considerable potential. The bid that I have allowed and the agreement with Railtrack—if we can achieve it—will see the union of the national railway system and the underground system. We will want to explore other potentials, but—in view of the timetable—that is more likely to be a matter for the London authority and the London mayor rather than for me.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I use the underground twice a day, almost every working day of the week—like thousands of my constituents. Anything that can be done to improve the service on the tube is welcome. However, I think there is a danger of painting too black a picture of the tube, which, considering its limitations, provides a first-class service. Although it suffers terrible difficulties—including breakdowns and other problems—by and large, it is a very effective service, and I pay tribute to Sir Malcolm Bates and his staff. What provision will the right hon. Gentleman make to ensure that the feet of the contractors involved are held to the fire more effectively than occurred previously, when one of the greatest civil engineering companies in the world had to be brought in to finish the Jubilee line extension?
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments about the running of the service. I have tended to react to the introductory comments of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about the quality and level of service. The staff do a very good job under difficult circumstances and they enable 840 million people to move around that system. That is one of the biggest contributions to the movement of people of any transport system. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we need to draw up tight contracts. I shall cite in evidence the contract that I negotiated on the channel tunnel rail link, which he should compare with the one that I inherited, and he will see the difference that I am trying to make to our transport systems.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I contribute to the proceedings as someone who does not care to drive in London or to bring his car here? What is the state of the tunnels, and what advice has the Department been given? Is not it true that tunnels age, like the rest of us, and that the Victorian tunnels are ageing together? The idea that stone lasts for ever is simply not true. What advice has been given about the long-term problems of renovating, and in some cases, rebuilding tunnels that have lasted a century or a century and a half, but which, as I said, are all ageing together?
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes an important point. A number of years ago, I discussed with the
166
chairman of the underground how one deals with investment on that scale. Much of the system, including many of the walls, bridges and tunnels, is 100 years old, and would cost billions of pounds to replace. Because of disinvestment in that infrastructure, the replacement costs would be as much as those for the sewerage system which was built 100 years ago.
One of the advantages of our proposals is that we can consider those assets, as companies need to do, and assess the risks. If public and private money is to be involved in the underground, a judgment must be made about risk. That risk is greatly influenced by the quality of investment and assets.
As anyone who is familiar with the London Underground system will know, there is a considerable amount of water in the system and pumps work all the time just to keep the water at the correct level. The age of the system is a problem, and I cannot kid myself that the proposals that I have announced today address all the fundamental problems of dealing with all the long-term deterioration of the underground's ageing assets.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the opportunities for improvement in the future as a result of the invitation to bidders, will he explain the precise difference between pre-qualification and qualification? Secondly, when did he last travel on the Northern line or the Circle line, both of which, I am sure he will agree, have been afflicted by serious problems? What scale and speed of improvement in their services does he anticipate?
Mr. Prescott: I often travel on the underground and have done so two or three times in the past week. I think everyone in the House has a great deal of experience of it. I was grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) about the quality of the service despite the difficulties.
The difference between pre-qualifying and qualifying arises from the fact that it will be very expensive to bid for the deals, so we shall invite people to bid in the pre-qualifying stage, when they can say whether they are interested and what their plans are. If, by the autumn, they have done so—I believe that a number of them will—we will invite one or two to take the more significant step of making a serious bid. It is a very expensive proposition to make a bid under the proposals. The different stages are therefore intended to distinguish the serious contenders—some of whom, I have no doubt, will be consortiums—and we shall have to judge which of them we should invite to make a more permanent, serious bid.
Mr. Mike Gapes: I welcome the statement, but I want to highlight the daily problems experienced by many hundreds of thousands of people who travel into central London from east London. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a problem of capacity on the Central line and that, despite his welcome announcement, there are difficulties that must be tackled so that capacity can be increased for travelling from east to west across London? Will he and his colleagues reconsider the possibilities of using crossrail or an alternative means to improve capacity for travelling across our city?
Mr. Prescott: I would not want to encourage my hon. Friend to think that we had in mind another £4 billion or

167
£5 billion project for crossrail—certainly not during the next two years, when I would have responsibility for it. The proposals that I presented today allow for cross-London transport and will be welcomed. We are also looking at ways to increase the throughput of trains, which can be achieved by improvements to signalling and track to enable trains to go faster and to be better controlled. In that way, we will get more "flights", as they are called, along the routes, which will give us more capacity. Furthermore, the bids include the lengthening of some station platforms, so that we can put more coaches on trains. Even though there may still be the same length of track, we plan to work it much more effectively and efficiently than at present. That will be one of the benefits of the investment.
Mr. Geraint Davies: First, does my right hon. Friend agree that the £7 billion announced today represents much better value for money to the taxpayer than the privatisation of Railtrack, which was sold for £1.9 billion and is now valued at £8 billion? Secondly, does he agree that we all welcome the fact that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is going down the tube? Thirdly, does my right hon. Friend envisage the integration of the current tube network and the newly arriving tramlink in Croydon, which he was kind enough to mention in his proposals? The people of Croydon welcome the initiative and look forward to the integration of London transport, which includes the link-up of tramlink to the wider network.
Mr. Prescott: I certainly believe that the £7 billion is an investment in the future of London and will be welcomed by everyone. It is clearly needed, and we look forward to getting the agreements to achieve it. On the question whether the Croydon light railway system will be integrated, I have told my hon. Friend previously that various opportunities arise once one stops thinking of the underground, the national rail system and airports as separate, and begin to integrate them and find ways of making the system work more effectively. That is a practical example of how we can get value for money.
Dr. Howard Stoate: May I tell my right hon. Friend how welcome his statement on joined-up transport for London will be to my constituents, many of whom are commuters? Can he reassure my constituents in Dartford that the channel tunnel rail link phase 2, including the Ebbsfleet station, is on target and will deliver the much-needed improved services for Britain and the whole of Europe?
Mr. Prescott: Yes.

Point of Order
4.12 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. According to the front page of the Financial Times—not exactly our most sensationalist newspaper—the people responsible for leading the Kosovo Liberation Army are somewhat truculent and have stated that they will not lay down their arms to NATO and that they regard themselves as the core of an army for an independent state of Kosovo. Indeed, the report goes further than that and suggests that they might be part of a force for a Greater Albania. That has urgent consequences. Have you had any request from the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office to make a statement on the matter before Thursday's debate?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by Ministers that they seek to make a statement on such matters. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that we have a debate on the issue on Thursday. If he tries to catch my eye, I hope that I may be able to allow him to speak, and perhaps he will raise the issue at that time.

Safety At Sea
4.13 pm
Mr. Mike Hancock: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require testing of the competency of users of pleasure and recreational craft; and to require the carrying of minimum safety equipment while at sea.
I am delighted to be given the opportunity of raising an issue that is important to many people and causes concern to hon. Members with maritime constituencies. There is an on-going problem in dealing with competency and safety factors relating to leisure craft.
If most Englishmen believe that every Englishman's home is his castle, every Briton believes that he is a born sailor and has gifts of navigation and knowledge of the sea, without ever attempting to gain such expertise. Because of that, every year—if not every day or month—people's lives are put at risk.
There are 3.5 million leisure craft in the United Kingdom and barely 35,000 of the people who use those craft have signed up for recognised competence courses. I accept of course that many more people have those skills, having gone through the recognised courses organised by the various sailing associations and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, but a number of safety issues need to be addressed. My local newspaper, The Portsmouth News, has campaigned hard on this matter because weekly, and sometimes even daily, it records incidents in which people's lives were put at risk because they simply did not have the knowledge, or the equipment on their leisure craft, to get back to harbour safely or to summon help.
Reading those reports has sickened me, and only a few weeks ago three men in a boat—none of whom were swimmers and all of whom lacked any competence—were nearly run down by a supertanker out in deep water. A supertanker has great difficulty in navigating in coastal waters, let alone trying to avoid three people in a small craft which is out of control in front of it.
Once again, we, the community, are faced with picking up the bill for the enormous cost of trying to help people and get them out of danger. I believe that prevention is better than cure and would hope that the Government will seriously consider introducing legislation which is long overdue. At least one person on board a leisure craft should be competent, understand the rules of the sea, know the tides and the area in which the craft is operating and have the necessary navigational skills to take the craft in and out of harbour. More important, there should be safety equipment on board, such as life-jackets or flares to summon help. On some occasions, a simple mobile phone could be the difference between life and death in coastal waters. Mobile phones should be part of the equipment taken to sea.
I am led to believe that the average cost of boats at the marina close to where I live is between £25,000 and £30,000. People will invest that amount of money and spend thousands of pounds a year on mooring fees, but they will not spend tens of pounds to supply life-jackets or to buy a box of flares, which would give them at least a chance should they run into danger. I recognise that organisations such as the Royal Yachting Association, the RNLI and the Coastguard Agency are all working hard to increase awareness of safety at sea, but too many people totally ignore their advice.
170
Any one of us could buy a fast leisure craft, put it on a trailer and take it out to the sea, although we may be without much engineering skill apart from being able to get our cars started if they have a fault. We could invite two or three friends and their children along and take them out into deep waters—in the channel or anywhere around our shores—without at any stage having to prove whether the boat is seaworthy or whether we have the skills and the safety equipment necessary to ensure that they would at least have a chance if an incident occurred. We might also have no means of communicating with people on shore should we run into difficulty. That cannot go on, because too many lives are at risk.
According to recent Coastguard Agency figures there were 5,500 recorded maritime incidents in 1987. Some people might be critical and say that those figures embrace all sorts of incidents, which they do, and deal with commercial and ferry operators, but 251 people died in sea-related accidents in 1997. In 1998, there were 11,500 incidents and 249 people died. That is a horrendous waste of life. The Coastguard Agency says that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, many of those lives could have been saved if simple competence or life-saving equipment had been possessed. What a needless waste.
The cost to the agencies concerned is remarkable. Raising the coastguard helicopter for a search and rescue mission costs £4,000 an hour and a service helicopter costs £8,000 an hour. Launching a coastguard search and rescue squad costs £3,500 an hour and launching a lifeboat costs about £1,000. That is a horrendous cost for risking those people's lives just because the operators of such leisure craft have behaved stupidly and arrogantly in our waters.
We must give a lead, and act responsibly. Some have suggested the creation of a licence similar to those that people need in order to drive cars; others have proposed a tax to pay for the rescue services, an idea with which the Coastguard Agency has flirted. I do not want that. What I want is strong action, and for us no longer to allow incompetent people to take great risks, on their own behalf and on behalf of those whom they invite to accompany them—in many instances, young children, most of them without life-jackets, who could not swim in deep, rough water even if they wanted to.
Many hon. Members will have stood on a quay in a coastal resort and seen leisure craft leave the marinas and harbours. All of them look wonderful, but how many people on them are wearing safety harnesses? Professional sailors, and those who are keen on their sport—racing sailors, and the leisure yachting fraternity—take stringent safety measures. They are the ones who can stand up and be counted, but too many others cannot.
The stark difference is this. When a professionally organised regatta goes badly wrong in Weymouth bay and 55 people are in the water because of a sudden change in the weather, all of them have proper safety equipment, all are picked up, and the whole disaster—or possible disaster—is over in minutes. Let us compare that with what happened to three inexperienced sailors in the middle of the Solent when something went wrong. Such people risk their own lives, and the lives of others on ferries and other craft on the Solent. More important, they risk the lives of those who work on our behalf: the winchmen in the helicopter, or the lifeboat crew, who have to go out to save them.

171
A colleague of mine recounted a story about what happened after a firework display after the end of Cowes week last year. As his craft was returning across the Solent, a sudden fog descended. There were dozens of boats on the Solent, most of them with no navigational lights. Their only means of getting back to harbour safely was to follow the Isle of Wight ferry into port. Can hon. Members imagine the disaster that could have occurred if at that time of night a large tanker had left the Fawley terminal? What if a tanker weighing a quarter of a million tonnes, steaming down the Solent and heading into deep water, were confronted with that sort of nonsense in the middle of a fog? There is no excuse for it. We simply cannot allow such arrogance to continue.
I hope that the House welcomes the opportunity for the issue to be aired. An abundance of literature from all the agencies asks people to join the safety campaign and to take note, but that is not enough. Fewer than 1 per cent. of those currently using leisure craft around our coasts have signed up to such commitments. That should not be allowed to continue. I commend the Bill to the House, and hope that we shall now see some action from Government to bring about a substantial improvement in the position.
4.23 pm
Mr. Ian Bruce: I oppose the Bill, although I am glad that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) has raised the issue, and agree wholeheartedly with what he has said about safety equipment and the importance of people knowing how they should operate on the sea.
This is, in a sense, a typically Liberal Democrat measure, in that we are not sure what would be in the Bill if it were printed; but the hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that everyone should be qualified to go out in a boat. I learned to sail when I was 12, and I suspect that the person who taught me was not qualified. For many years, I taught scouts to sail. I suspect that I, too, was not qualified when I started to do that, other than by experience. Indeed, the Scout Association decided that everyone supervising scouts should have RYA qualifications. We went to a lot of trouble in Yorkshire to acquire those qualifications. The centre there runs scout sailing and has fully qualified instructors under the RYA scheme, but it is one of the few places where people can learn to sail. People with the opportunity to sail a boat—for example, an experienced sailor—cannot simply say, "I am going to take a group of scouts out." That is the great problem.
We have to put the matter into context. I know that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South asked for advice from the RYA about the size of the problem. Are we doing badly in the United Kingdom? I understand that he has been sent a copy of a table from Ocean Projects Ltd, which shows the United Kingdom, for once, at the bottom of a league table where it wants to be at the bottom: the UK has the fewest number of deaths per vessel in the whole world. That supports what we are saying.
The UK's system is working extremely well. Of course, we must ensure that people are constantly told of the dangers of going out to sea, but I am always wary of saying that a person is qualified because he did a course
172
for a week and came out with a bit of paper at the end. The one thing people know who have been sailing as long as I have is how little we know and how difficult things can get if we suddenly find ourselves in a situation where the gear has broken, or whatever. On such occasions we have to use our long experience to deal with the problems.
I happen to have a British Canoe Union certificate because of my scouting involvement. I happen to have an RYA certificate, again because of my scouting involvement, but my experience based on years of sailing is much more important. That is a sensible arrangement.
I am wary of the situation where we should have licences for those on boats. In my garage, I have a canoe that has not been out for several years. I suspect that, if I had to have it licensed, or to have something of that nature, it would never get out because I would always think, "Is it going out this year?" I have a windsurfer. Unfortunately, I have been out with it only once this year, but, again, the opportunity to go out is important. People do have to operate simply. [Interruption.] For anyone who wants to talk about my majority of 77, it is now equivalent to a majority of 120 per cent. over both the major parties in my constituency, and two and a half times that over the Labour party candidate. I am grateful for the heckle, but I do not want to stray from the subject.
We must keep telling people about the safety problem, but the most significant point is that the RYA is wholly against what the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South is proposing, despite the fact that it would run the training courses and make all the money out of certificating people. It wants to encourage people to learn, but to keep the dead hand of regulation from leisure boating. We all have to work together. I welcome, as I say, what has been said because it highlights the fact that we need to be aware of the problem, but we should also congratulate ourselves on our safe record.
The previous Government and the present Government have all pressed for additional safety equipment, particularly in the professional area and for larger boats. All sorts of things are currently available to stop people getting into trouble. My neighbour has bought a boat. He has never been sailing or boating before, but, sensibly, he is working with people who know how to operate a boat. He will gain the necessary experience. I suspect that most of those people who will offer that sensible help and buy all the right equipment do not have a paper qualification that says that they are qualified to be on that particular vessel. It is important to bear that fact in mind.
I am grateful that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South mentioned safety in Weymouth bay because it experienced the sort of incident that no one expected. Suddenly, from nowhere, a squall came up and waves appeared, the like of which we had never had in the bay before. As a result 70 vessels were left in the water—I believe that the hon. Gentleman said that 58 were in the water. I think that even more people were in the water. Many people had to rescue themselves. The rescue service was fantastic and the House should pay tribute to those involved. I notice the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) in her place. I hope that she will not mind me saying that one of the chief officers of the local authority telephoned me and asked me to make the point that if Weymouth were to lose its co-ordination centre, there would not be the effective co-ordination that we saw on that occasion.

173
I hope that the Minister will take that in the spirit in which it is meant and that we can look at what is going to happen.
We rely on our Coastguard Agency and all the helicopters and other services. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South talked about the Englishman's home being his castle and so on, and leisure boating is one of our freedoms. If the Government want to do something, I suspect that one way to save lives would be to ban the use of airbeds on the sea. That is one of the most dangerous things that people can use. We should look at things such as that rather than trying to overregulate. Let us spend money telling people about the importance of having proper safety equipment on board and of experience, but we should not put a hurdle in the way of more people getting on to the water.
I am sure that the House will be happy to know that the House of Commons versus the House of Lords sailing race was held on the Thames this morning and was won by the House of Commons. We do not need to abolish the House of Lords to win such things. The House of Lords is ahead by six to five in the series and we should keep the House of Lords so that we can beat it fair and square rather than try to abolish it. I oppose the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Brian Cotter, Dr. Rudi Vis, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Bob Russell, Mr. Peter Viggers, Mr. Syd Rapson, Mr. Richard Allan and Mr. Nigel Jones.

SAFETY AT SEA
Mr. Mike Hancock accordingly presented a Bill to require testing of the competency of users of pleasure and recreational craft; and to require the carrying of minimum safety equipment while at sea: 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 119].

Health Bill [Lords] and Immigration and Asylum Bill (Allocation of Time)
4.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Health Bill [Lords] and the Immigration and Asylum Bill—

Timetable
1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading of the Health Bill [Lords] shall be completed at the sitting this day and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the second allotted day.

Questions to be put
2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings on either of the Bills to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall forthwith **put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(3) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

Miscellaneous
3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings—

(a) on the Health Bill [Lords];

(b) on the Immigration and Asylum Bill at the sitting this day until midnight;

(c) on the Immigration and Asylum Bill on the second allotted day;

and those proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House.
4.—(1) If at the sitting this day—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to seven o'clock, and

(b) proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time,

the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until midnight.
(2) If on the second allotted day a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over to seven o'clock or from an earlier day, the Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on either of the Bills.
6. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on either of the Bills are taken or to recommit either of the Bills; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
7. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to either of the Bills except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
8. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
9. If at the sitting this day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on this Motion or on either of the Bills, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Interpretation
10. In this Order 'allotted day' means this day and any other day on which the Immigration and Asylum Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.
At 10 o'clock last night, in light of the lamentable lack of progress on the Report stage of the Health Bill, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced that we would introduce a timetable motion covering the remaining stages of the Health Bill and the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
In an effort to ensure that both those important Bills were satisfactorily debated, the Government had invited the Tory Opposition to proceed by way of an agreed programme motion, but they refused. On three occasions—20 May, 26 May and 10 June—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced that it was intended that the remaining stages of the Health Bill would be dealt with in one day. Not a single Tory objected. None of them expressed the least reservation about dealing with that Bill in one day. Yesterday, on the day appointed for completion of the remaining stages, the Tories decided to spin out the debate. They spent more than three hours debating a Government new clause which the Deputy Speaker had described as being about
"technical arrangements on the border."— [Official Report, 14 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 59.]
and about which they had been forewarned in Committee in a letter from the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Denham). Their opposition to the new clause was so important to them that they did not even bother to vote against it, having debated it for three hours. So it went on. Tory Members had to be called to order no fewer than 21 times by the Deputy Speaker during the debate.
There can be no doubt that the Bill has been thoroughly debated. It had 42 hours of debate in the House of Lords and 77 hours in Committee. The Government have responded to the points raised in both Houses by accepting amendments or by introducing our own amendments.
As a result of that proper parliamentary scrutiny, the Bill is better now than when it started out, which is only right and proper. However, last night, improving the Health Bill was not what the Tories were about: to be fair, no one would expect that from the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—the Burke and Hare of the Tory Back Benches—or from the hon. Members for Altrincham
176
and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who also adorned the debate.
The attitude of those Tory wreckers was made clear last night, when, simply to protract the proceedings—
Mr. Graham Brady rose
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it have been in order if I were wrecking a debate? Surely that would have been out of order, and I would have been called to order by the occupant of the Chair. I should therefore like an apology from the Minister.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The Minister has said nothing out of order.
Mr. Dobson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The attitude of those Tory wreckers was made crystal clear last night, when, simply to protract the proceedings, they voted against three orders agreed by the professions and the Privy Council—
Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dobson: No.
The wreckers voted against three orders to improve the professional regulation of clinical scientists, speech and language therapists and paramedics. I am sure that the members of those professions who were involved, and their patients, will have noted the priorities of the extremists who are now running the Tory party.
The five hours that the motion will provide today for debate on the Health Bill, added to the five and a half hours taken up yesterday, mean that the Bill's remaining stages will occupy 10 and a half hours on the Floor of the House. That is longer, not shorter, than the one day's debate that was envisaged originally and to which the Tories never objected.
The timetable motion deals also with the Immigration and Asylum Bill—an important measure that has been the subject of 93 hours of scrutiny in a Special Standing Committee. That procedure is rarely used, and has never been used before for this type of Bill. The Committee took written and oral evidence from a wide range of organisations and individuals outside the House, whose evidence helped to identify the key issues to be raised when the Bill was considered clause by clause. That consideration itself was very detailed.
Once again, therefore, there is no question of curtailing the debate. The motion is necessary simply to ensure that the Immigration and Asylum Bill will be dealt with over the course of the two days earmarked for its remaining stages—which is what the Tories had asked for and which the Government have provided.
As the time taken debating the motion is eating into the time available to debate the Health Bill itself, I shall be brief and simply invite my right. hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion.
4.38 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: The contribution made by the Secretary of State for Health epitomises the profound arrogance characterising the Government's attitude towards legislation and proper parliamentary scrutiny. Indeed, he is the same Secretary of State who effectively abolished fundholding, and then came to the House for permission to do so one year later. That is entirely typical of the way in which the Government have approached their legislation.
Today, the Government come before the House not with what is called a guillotine, but with a double guillotine, in which a time limitation will be put not only on the Health Bill—which was being debated yesterday—but on the Immigration and Asylum Bill. I should like to know, when the Secretary of State for the Home Department replies to the debate, on how many previous occasions there have been double guillotines in the House.
One can, of course, understand the Government's embarrassment. On the Immigration and Asylum Bill, the Government are afraid of their own Back Benchers, and rightly so. When it comes to the Health Bill, the Government are simply afraid to debate their own failure. It is amazing impertinence to suggest a guillotine for a Bill for which the Government have contributed the majority of the business to be considered, thus squeezing out the limited, restrained and responsible input that there has been from the Opposition parties.
The Government have tabled six new clauses on the Immigration and Asylum Bill. Because those new clauses have priority, the guillotine will squeeze out debate on Opposition amendments and new clauses. The Government have tabled 82 amendments to the Health Bill. That is rather odd. The Bill started in the Lords, where it was subjected to considerable scrutiny and many of the issues on which the Government have now tabled amendments were raised, but they tabled no amendments then and did not respond. The issues were rehearsed again during the lengthy Committee debate, but the Government did not take that opportunity to table amendments. They then flooded the amendment paper on Report with what they coyly describe as tidying-up amendments and put a guillotine on discussion. That is a most unfortunate and decidedly anti-democratic way of proceeding.
I shall be taking an interest in the Immigration and Asylum Bill and I have been taking an interest in the Health Bill. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on the distinguished way in which he has conducted business on the Immigration and Asylum Bill and other matters in his portfolio in the past two years. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on the detailed way in which he has tackled a complex Bill that refers to many other Acts and raises many highly important issues. He has done that with great distinction. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on succeeding in the task of destroying the Government's now floundering reputation on the health service. I further congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), whose handling of the Committee stage of the Health Bill has rightly attracted praise from both sides of the House.
178
Regrettably, I cannot extend my congratulations to the Government.
Mr. Charles Wardle: While my right hon. Friend is on the subject of congratulations, will she join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? Given the highly unusual nature of this hybrid timetable motion, which requires skill, as well as knowledge and experience of health and home affairs, was he not particularly wise in promoting her to the home affairs role today so that she could deal so effectively with both aspects of the motion?
Miss Widdecombe: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has great foresight.
I understand the Government's embarrassment on the Immigration and Asylum Bill. When we introduced a Bill on the subject in 1996, the current Home Secretary and his team accused us of playing the race card, indulging in vulgar electioneering and trying to make race an issue. The measures that we introduced did not go anything like as far as the Government's measures. We are now faced with the forced dispersal of asylum seekers.
In opposition, Labour Members criticised—nay, voted against—our proposals to introduce a speedy return to safe third countries; but what do they do in government? They build on our measures by removing the right to judicial review for people being returned to—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I gently remind the right hon. Lady that we are discussing not the content of the Bill but the allocation of time?
Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important that those matters should be discussed in full, which is why we should not have time limitation. I was describing the Government's embarrassment, which is behind the guillotine motion. I will not stretch your patience by going any further into the details, other than to say that the Bill even includes fines for innocent, law-abiding lorry drivers who happen to find an illegal immigrant in the back of their lorry. If I go home and find a burglar and turn him over to the police, will I be fined? It is difficult to see how the analogy would not hold.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend is putting the Opposition's case very strongly, but surely there is an even stronger case in the way in which Government Back Benchers are being gagged because of the Government's embarrassment over the fact that people in the Trappist tendency suddenly spoke. The Government have realised that they could lose more seats than they gained in the general election if Thursday's result were repeated in two years' time.
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman's majority is only 77.
Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for raising that matter. If Thursday's result were repeated, I would have two and a half times as many votes as the Labour candidate. That is why the Government are attacking their own Back Benchers.
Miss Widdecombe: There is no doubt that the Government are extremely frightened, and they have good

179
reason to be so after last Thursday, when it was clearly demonstrated that they cannot continue with the arrogance and dismissiveness of which the motion is an example. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is not only the Opposition who will be denied adequate time for debate. One can only conclude that to deny time to Government Back Benchers is the main motivation for adding the Immigration and Asylum Bill to a guillotine motion on the Health Bill.
After all, it was the Health Bill that yesterday failed to make progress, in the Government's terms, or was being democratically debated, in our terms. The Government are afraid of what will be said about the Immigration and Asylum Bill, and rightly so, because some of what is being proposed is reasonable, and we would support it in principle, but we remember what Labour Members said before the general election about what they wanted to do and the amount of sheer abuse that they heaped on us for measures, some of which were in the same direction but some of which were rather milder.
The Government have introduced a panic Bill on asylum, because they started off their term of office sending out a message that Britain was a soft touch for bogus asylum seekers. They panicked when they realised that more and more such people were coming in, and when the resultant Bill ran into trouble with their own Back Benchers they decided to curtail debate. That is hardly an impressive way of handling a highly important piece of legislation.
It is most unfortunate that because of the guillotine on the Health Bill, substantial matters—again, deeply embarrassing to the Government—will not be given adequate time for debate. For example, at a stage that we will probably not reach, because of this draconian motion, we have a proposal to replace the ludicrous and discredited emphasis on waiting lists with a far more responsible emphasis on waiting times. We believe that the Government are embarrassed by that. They do not want to stand up and justify their ludicrous preference for raw numbers on lists, which are only too easily manipulated. The Government might not want us to reach that point because they do not want to be obliged to discuss the fact that even under their ludicrous procedures for waiting lists and gross manipulation of them, the lists have still increased by 19,000.
It is only right that we should debate the superior merits of waiting times over lists. What bothers patients is not how many other people need the same operation but how long they will have to wait for their operation. It is right, furthermore, that we take into account not only the time that they have to wait after they have seen the consultant but the time that they have to wait from the point at which their GP refers them—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the right hon. Lady that she is straying on to issues that will probably be dealt with later on?
Miss Widdecombe: My point is that I fear that we will not be able to deal with such matters later on. It is because the Government do not wish to deal with those matters later on that they have tabled this allocation of time motion. The motivation behind the motion is to prevent
180
discussion of the overwhelming arguments for substituting waiting times as the measurement of success of the NHS for the ludicrous waiting lists, and of the slavishness with which the Government compel clinical priorities to be distorted to deliver an ill-thought-out political pledge. I am sorry that we will not have time to discuss that important issue.
It is also important that we discuss the necessary and adequate regulation of the private sector, but that issue comes even further down the list than waiting lists. The Government's unwillingness to discuss that is evidenced by the fact that they slipped out a press release at 3 am. I do not know who was up slipping out press releases at 3 am, but it does not smack of a Government who want their press releases to be noticed.
Mr. Dobson: It was not me.
Miss Widdecombe: I believe the Secretary of State for Health, because he was not even present yesterday for the debate on the Health Bill. He absented himself and we were told why. The Minister of State said that the Secretary of State had better things to do. He had better things to do than to come to the House and to debate this important Bill.
Mr. Dobson: Quite right.
Miss Widdecombe: That comment is wholly in tune with the Prime Minister's attitude to Parliament. He thinks that this House does not matter, that debate in this Chamber does not matter and that the exercise of this House's democratic function does not matter. That is now also the view of the Secretary of State for Health. It is a poor show.
It is important to allow enough time to discuss the regulation of the private sector. In another place, they added a new clause to the Bill to extend the functions of the Commission for Health Improvement to cover the private as well as the public sector. When the Government are using the private sector to deliver their waiting lists pledge and when NHS patients are sent by GPs to the private sector because the NHS cannot meet the demand, it is right that the private sector should be regulated as the public sector is. We should be able to discuss that, but we will not be able to do so because of the allocation of time motion.
When a Secretary of State resorts to pushing press releases out at 3 am, he really does not want to discuss the issues. Nor will we be able to discuss the abolition of fundholding, which comes even lower down the list. Of course, fundholding has already been abolished, but the Government are now seeking the consent of Parliament. They anticipated the consent of Parliament and went ahead, and that is another measure of their dismissive attitude to Parliament.
We also wanted to discuss, in new clause 25, a duty of partnership with the private sector. The Government believe that such a partnership is inimical to the interests of the NHS. It is not: it would enhance the NHS by increasing the total sums available for spending on health. We want to debate that important proposition, but cannot because the Secretary of State is afraid.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful point in support of

181
centre-right policies and the constructive engagement between public and private sectors. Did not last week's elections reveal that the desire for such policies is shared by people across Europe?
Miss Widdecombe: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. Thursday's election results amounted to a massive endorsement of Conservative policies in this country, and the same was evident across Europe. Through the introduction of proportional representation, the Government were able to save themselves from the humiliation that they should have suffered. They would have won even fewer seats if the elections had been conducted according to the system that the Home Secretary prefers.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady. I seem to be losing my memory a little, so will she tell the House whether she was a member of the previous Government, who brought in large numbers of guillotines on important legislation? Did she ever oppose that practice, or am I thinking of someone else?
Miss Widdecombe: As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the most extraordinary thing about the motion is that it is a double guillotine. It affects a Bill that the Government alleged was not making progress, and also a completely unrelated Bill. I do not think that the hon. Lady will find that that was common under the previous Government.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: If sufficient progress were made to permit a debate on the relationship between the private sector and the national health service, would the right hon. Lady articulate the view of the wing of the Conservative party that believes that the private sector should have an enhanced role, or that of the Leader of the Opposition, who considers that such an approach is inappropriate if his party is ever to get re-elected?
Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman's understanding of Conservative party policy on this matter is as poor as his understanding of new clause 25. I suggest that he examines our policy so that he can achieve a more informed view. If he continues to interrupt, we will be unable to discuss the extremely important issues involved.
I shall sum up what I have said. First, the double guillotine motion is unusual and has not been justified. Secondly, those who will suffer, apart from the Opposition, are those Labour Back Benchers who wish to speak on the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
Thirdly, the Government have flooded the amendment paper with many new clauses and amendments. They are curtailing debate even though those new clauses and amendments will take precedence over matters that they do not want to debate. When they were in opposition, the Government accused their Conservative predecessors of playing the race card, so I can understand their embarrassment at their own proposals on immigration and asylum. I can also understand their embarrassment at longer waiting lists, and why they do not want to debate the validity of their measurements and the Health Bill's impact on the medical profession.
Finally, the proposal reveals the Government's profound arrogance and contempt for the House. Democratic procedures are not well served when debate
182
is curtailed because there is too much debating going on, nor when a completely unrelated debate is also curtailed because the Government see an opportunity to wriggle out of embarrassment.
I look forward to hearing the Home Secretary's reply, and to many more exchanges with him over the next couple of years.
4.59 pm
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to be able to speak in this debate on the allocation of time. We must make it clear to the Government and the country how difficult it will be to discuss all the important matters before us in the time available. Perhaps the most serious crisis facing the national health service concerns junior doctors' hours. The Government seek to restrict the time that we can spend on that important matter.
The utterly excessive hours that junior doctors are expected to work without sleep or rest require immediate intervention by the Government. I do not say that the problem is a new one. It was already serious in 1991 when the previous Government introduced the new deal. However, 8,500 junior doctors continue to work, on call, for periods that, during the week, frequently begin at 9 am and continue until 5 pm the following day. At weekends, they work from 9 am on the Saturday through the night on Saturday and through day and night on Sunday before finishing at 5 am on Monday.
The only rest that doctors can take during that 54-hour period is approximately four or five hours of protected sleep won simply because of the courtesy that some doctors cover for others. Either on the Saturday night or on the Sunday, a doctor's colleagues cover for him so that he might hope to be in bed by 1.30 am and stay there until 7 am. Except for those four or five hours of sleep, there is absolutely no rest. Doctors go through that gruelling experience one weekend in every four, and during the following week, they must again spend a full night on duty, working from nine o'clock one morning right through the night until the following afternoon.
It is a scandal that the Government are not allowing us time to debate this matter and bring it to public attention. We need time to debate it because the position is not sufficiently understood, even within the medical profession, for which I have the highest regard. Long hours are required for training, but the situation today is more serious than it has been in the past.
Dr. Evan Harris: I am interested by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. Does he realise that the Liberal Democrats have tabled a new clause on this matter and that we will reach it if he spends less time discussing the guillotine? It is among the early amendments to be discussed, and I shall be interested to see whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman stays to participate in that debate on a Liberal Democrat proposal for legislation on junior doctors' hours.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to know that the Liberal Democrats are interested in this matter. New clause 13 will be taken along with new clause 28 and amendment No.180, and I have already written a speech that I hope to have an opportunity to deliver. In the guillotine debate,

183
however, I must emphasise the need for time and the wrongness of reducing the amount of time available to discuss these issues.
The country should know, through debate in Parliament, the sheer intensity of the work done by the national health service today. Some hon. Members may have heard "Any Questions" the other day. Baroness Jay said that her husband, a distinguished consultant, had told her that he had had to go through all this and that long hours were necessary for training. I do not deny that long hours and rigorous discipline are necessary for training. However, with improved procedures, in-patients being treated in the national health service today are much iller than they were. Patients are discharged much quicker and those who are left in hospital are much iller.
Doctors in general surgery, general medicine or paediatrics—some of the major specialties—do not get to bed. Another story on which we dine out—
Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way before he dines out. Is he aware that a house officer at Addenbrooke's hospital gets only £4.02 in overtime compared with £6.24 for a cleaner? Is that not a slap in the face for workers in the health service from this so-called caring Government?
Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend's argument emphasises how much this matter needs to be debated in detail. Part of the problem, which is admittedly inherited because this has been going on for some time, is that overtime rates—it is almost an insult to use that expression—for young doctors are not calculated as they would be in any other civilised job. Instead of being paid half as much again or twice as much, they are paid 50 or 70 per cent. of their normal rate.
Health service trusts are under great pressure in all sorts of ways and always have been, but they have been put under even greater pressure as a result of the Government's over-emphasis on waiting lists, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said. We must have time to get across the fact that NHS trusts are abusing that style of payment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) highlighted. It is not right for them to get young doctors on the cheap, when those young people are staggering through the night, hardly able to cope.
I am not exaggerating, as right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench also know. We need time to develop ways to improve that position. In the time available for the debate, we should give credit where it is due. The Government have built on some of our new deal methods. NHS circular 1998/240 set out specific timetables, hours and amounts of rest for young doctors. That circular states that young doctors who are working overnight for 16 hours, from 5 pm to 9 am the following day, should get at least eight hours' rest, of which half should be continuous. We should have time to discuss that, but this debate does not allow us the time to get across to the House and the country the fact that those doctors do not get that rest. It just does not happen in the busy specialties, such as general medicine, paediatrics and general surgery. My goodness, the classic example is renal medicine—there are jokes about that, but they are
184
in poor taste and I will not make them. Those doctors do not get time to sleep—they stagger on, grossly abused and overworked.
We need time to study in practice what can be done. Something can be done to assist if only we put our minds to it. I am grateful to see the Minister of State nodding. I am sure that he would like to crack that problem. In a funny way, he would probably be grateful if we could find the time to highlight the sheer seriousness of it, so that he could squeeze a little more money out of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to help him crack it. There are sensible ways to overcome organisational problems, such as bleep systems with senior night nurses, which can relieve the pressure.
One of the difficulties caused by the pressure on waiting times and the extra people who are being put through the hospital system is the sheer amount of time that that takes on admission. We need time to explain that. When we have a chance to debate the matter, we shall find that it means that young doctors are spending their time up until 11 pm—or even later—simply admitting the patients who are coming into hospital to the beds that have become available during that day. We need to debate the sensible suggestions that have been made, such as the one that there should be dedicated admissions units, staffed by young doctors, or other doctors, so that there is rather less pressure on those who are dealing with patients who have already been admitted.
Where shall we find those extra doctors? We need time during the debate for an answer from the Minister as to whether they could not be found—as I have been told—overseas, in the European Union. I hope that that matter can be discussed during the allocated time. I understand that, at present, there is something of a glut—probably only a temporary one—of young medical practitioners in other EU countries. We should invite them over to this country and pay them to assist in tackling the problem.
We need to deal with some important matters. Our objection to these guillotine motions is not merely tactical, nor is it cynical; it is real. These are matters that it is vital for Parliament to discuss. Unless they come out into the open, the country will not be governed and legislation will not be scrutinised in a way that makes a reality of a democratic society.
Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. and learned Friend as puzzled as I am as to why the guillotine motion was required in the first place? Last night, everyone had accepted that we might sit through the night, and was prepared to do so, if necessary, in order to discuss those issues in detail. When was the House asked to rise? Was it at 1 o'clock, 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning? No, it was asked to rise at 10 o'clock at night. Does my right hon. and learned Friend have any idea of why that was?
Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Government should take heed of that point. There is something a little more civilised about the hours that the Government have tried to introduce for the business of the House. However, it is neither civilised nor democratic if that restricts debate on matters of vital importance in such a way that legislation is not properly scrutinised.
At present, the Government have an enormous majority. Why do they not operate shift systems, like those that they should be instituting in the NHS? In a

185
shift system, even if people were working long and hard, they would not be engaged in the idiotic business of working through for 32 hours on the trot during the week, with no rest, and for 54 hours on the trot at weekends, with only four or five hours of continuous rest throughout that period. That is a scandal and it has to be stopped. I am sure that the Government can look to the full assistance of the Opposition in encouraging the right measures to ensure that it is stopped. We know that such measures exist. We need time to debate the matter. This guillotine should not be imposed.
5.13 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) will forgive me if I do not follow him along the esoteric lines of his sudden involvement in the national health service. One thing that distinguishes Back-Bench Members from Front-Bench Members of the House is the enormous short-term memory loss that seems to be a condition of having been a member of any Government. Somehow, Members who have pushed through guillotine motions, during many hours and with great vigour, forget that fact instantly when they cross the Floor and find themselves on the Opposition Benches.
Sir Nicholas Lyell rose
Mrs. Dunwoody: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants me to go into the question of doctors' hours, I can keep going on that subject for the next four hours with no difficulty whatever. I too have a consultant in my family, who makes precisely the point that, unless people get some general training, they are not as useful as they used to be.
Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Dunwoody: I should be terribly thrilled to do so, but I think that I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire, if the hon. Member for Lichfield will forgive me.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: May I take it that the hon. Lady believes that the points I have made are fair ones, or is she telling the House that such intolerably long hours, not only on call but continuously working, are a sensible form of training? I cannot believe the latter, but perhaps she will clarify her view.
Mrs. Dunwoody: The right hon. and learned Gentleman might like to know that, in a long married life, most of it spent living in hospitals, I discovered that many doctors work extremely long hours and that some of them should not be allowed to work at all, which is an entirely different matter—but if he wants chapter and verse, I can supply them. As I said, I am delighted that he has suddenly discovered the problem of doctors' hours in the NHS, which has been known to some of us for the past 40 years.
If the House will forgive me, I should like to make a serious point. I have been a Member of Parliament long enough to know that all Governments, when faced with timetable problems, almost inevitably demand faster
186
movement of their legislation—that it should pass through both Houses at the speed they desire, preferably with no examination by anybody. Most Governments are fairly evenhanded; it is not that they do not want their own Back Benchers to examine legislation: they do not want anyone at all to look at it. So it is not new to me to find my colleagues—albeit the two members of the Cabinet for whom I have greatest affection, if I can say that without entirely wrecking their parliamentary careers—demanding greater speed and, indeed, a double guillotine.
However, it would be wrong to allow the guillotine to be passed without saying that I do not think it a very good idea. There are those who believe that, if every single piece of legislation that passes through the House is programmed, it will always be possible to issue statements at a time when the press will use them, the House will respond in a manner that keeps my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Whips Office happy, and life will be a garden filled with the most beautiful flowers. That is not my experience. The House of Commons and the other place operate best when their Members have the opportunity to take pieces of legislation and talk about them in detail.
That is not to say that scrutiny is done with malice aforethought. There are those of us who want to argue about legislation because we think that it is sometimes badly framed and that, sometimes, even if it is well framed, the implications have not been fully thought out. All Members of Parliament ought to have the right to express an opinion. I was therefore saddened—I put it no higher than that—to see that the Immigration and Asylum Bill had been included in the guillotine.
The simple reason for that feeling is that there are aspects of that Bill that still give me pause, even though the Home Secretary has been sensible enough and gracious enough to speak in some detail to his parliamentary colleagues. He knows that our concerns are genuine and that we still retain some of them. He also knows me well enough to know that I shall express my view with some vigour, whether in public or in private—not that he has been noticeably put off by that.
When we consider a guillotine motion, it is important to ask whether it is justified and whether it will produce the desired result, which is good legislation—not necessarily hasty legislation, but good legislation. Will it result in our having to return to the measure at some point in the future and apologise for having got something wrong, not because we meant to get it wrong, but because we did not have time to consider it properly and the people who would have raised questions did not have the time or opportunity to talk to others?
The Secretary of State for Health and the Home Secretary can both say, with considerable justification, that both Bills have spent a long time passing through the House; people have had the opportunity to consult, and that stage should be long behind us. However, in reality, all Governments table new clauses and amendments. Even though the current Government are way behind the previous one, not yet having reached the point of tabling 400 amendments on Third Reading—there is always hope—it is sad to see this guillotine being moved at this stage in respect of these Bills.
I know why the guillotine has been moved and I understand all the pressures, but I am not persuaded that it is the right way to proceed. The policies with which the

187
Bills deal are tremendously and fundamentally important because they affect the lives of people when they are at their most damaged and at their most vulnerable. The decisions we take will have an enormous impact, way beyond the number of people whom we currently believe might be adversely affected.
I do not want to say more. I think the House of Commons should be reminded occasionally that, even when it appears to be doing its best and to be at its most disciplined and most organised, and even when it responds with alacrity to the wishes of the Whips Office and the desires of Front Benchers on both sides—neither side changes: they both play the same games, some well and some badly—it needs to be watched closely. I am sorry, but I do not think this is a good idea. I did not think the guillotine was a good idea when the previous Government used it and I do not think it is a good idea now. I am extremely sorry that it has been applied to this legislation.
5.20 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I shall be brief, as I share the views eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). We are talking about extremely important legislation, and I shall use only a small amount of time that would otherwise be devoted to debating these measures. I will certainly not waste time in the way Conservative spokespeople have done this afternoon.
This debate is about the orderly management of parliamentary business. I make no bones about it: I think the guillotine should always be used as an absolute last resort. Unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said—
Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think I heard the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) say that Conservative spokespeople—only one of us has spoken in the debate—had wasted time this afternoon. Presumably, you would not have allowed me to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you believe that I wasted time this afternoon?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the right hon. Lady had been wasting time, I would certainly have called her to order.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This debate is about the orderly management of our time. We must try to achieve the best scrutiny of the legislation that comes before the House. Anybody who attended, watched or listened to the debate last night would have been fully aware that it was not a good use of House of Commons time: it was not a careful assessment of the legislation before the House and it did not result in proper scrutiny.
Guillotine debates always have an element of play acting, and this afternoon is no exception. I know—as I am sure the House does—that Conservative Front Benchers were clearly manoeuvring last night in order to make a point. I do not blame the Opposition for that, but it should be obvious to all, inside and outside the House. The Conservatives sought to trigger precisely the sort of
188
motion that is now before us so that they could say that the Government had cut short the debate. The Government stand accused of making no attempt to avert that motion. They could have done so, if they had wished, by offering a programme motion.
I serve on the Modernisation of the House of Commons Committee, and we have experimented successfully with agreed programme motions involving all parties. I would like to extend that process further by ensuring that Back Benchers have some input. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich would like to have some input, and I believe that would be extremely helpful. No one can pretend that what occurred last night amounted to orderly management of the business of the House.
The Government did not offer a programme motion on the Health Bill. I understand that to be the fact. I am involved in these discussions to some extent, and the Government made no offer to programme the timing of that legislation. What sort of programme motion could we have regarding the Immigration and Asylum Bill? We do not know whether there will be punctuation marks during the debate to enable the articulation of all views in the House—particularly those of Government Back Benchers. No offer has been made to us and I understand that no detailed offer was made to the Conservatives. The Government stand accused of provoking this situation in order to smother the views of any remaining Labour rebels.
Both sides of the House have been play acting. Indeed, is this not some sort of pantomime? We have had contributions from Baron Belly Laugh and the Dame this afternoon, and I gather that later we shall see Jack the Beanstalk himself. Sadly, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not in his usual place. He usually takes the part of the wolf in Red Riding Hood and at this stage he would normally snarl, bear his fangs and make the point that all Conservative Governments used the guillotine far more often than do the present Government.
It is ridiculous that we have reached this point. It is a reflection on the way in which the House is managed, and the fact that we cannot manage it better is a reflection on us all. I hope that we can now get on with the real debate.
5.25 pm
Sir Norman Fowler: We can take it that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is not a candidate for the Liberal Democrat leadership. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Yes, it is a shame. The hon. Gentleman appears to come from the bureaucratic tendency in the Liberal Democrats. He says that this debate is about the orderly management of business or time but it is not; it is about parliamentary democracy, and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was entirely right about that.
I shall be brief, and I speak as perhaps the most recent arrival on the Back Benches. I want to protest at the use of the guillotine. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who spoke from the Front Bench and whom I congratulate on her new position—she will be entirely excellent—pointed out that the guillotine deals with two Bills. I shall concentrate on the Immigration and Asylum Bill because I am most familiar with that.

189
Even if I accepted the Health Secretary's arguments, they have nothing to do with that Bill. By any standards, it is a most important Bill. It seeks to deal with questions relating to political asylum seekers, both genuine and bogus. Inevitably, the Bill is sensitive; it deals with issues of human rights and the rights of families and children. It arouses genuine and sincere differences of opinion.
That is not only my view, but that of the Home Secretary, because he made the Bill, exceptionally, subject to the Special Standing Committee procedure. I assume that his aim was to achieve the best possible legislation after detailed consideration. There is no point in having that system and using it unless that is the aim. Today, that policy is being reversed—that is the truth of what is being proposed. There is now no question of the Bill receiving the fullest examination. Its remaining stages were to be taken over two days, and they will now, at best, be taken in just over a day.
In that time, we shall be expected to consider amendments that deal with the treatment of over-stayers, the removal of asylum claimants, support for children and restrictions on employment. We shall be asked to deal with charges for passengers without proper documentation, bail hearings, victims of torture, detainees with children and a range of other matters, not to mention the Bill's Third Reading.
We shall be expected to deal, most crucially, with legions of new clauses and Government amendments. It is not Opposition Members but Home Office Ministers who have filled the Order Paper with amendments, and now they are guillotining the discussion of those amendments. That discussion is not the responsibility of the Opposition or of the Government's allies, the Liberal Democrats; it is absolutely the Government's responsibility.
In that time, we shall be expected to deal also with Opposition amendments. Even the Liberal Democrats have managed to muster the courage to table one or two amendments, and there are amendments in the name of Labour Back Benchers. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald suggested, there is no doubt that one reason for the Government's concern is an amendment tabled by Government Back Benchers.
This is a disgraceful way to treat the House. Although the Health Secretary has now left the Chamber, I must say that his arrogant speech did nothing for the Government's case. It was a disgraceful speech that would not have persuaded anyone who listened to it, and he should be ashamed of it.
Mr. John Bercow: Many hon. Members will agree with the sentiments that my right hon. Friend has just expressed. Does he believe that we should be told by the Secretary of State whether he authorised the Leader of the House last night to describe the new clauses that had been tabled to the Health Bill as "minor and technical"? Given that they cover a wide variety of matters that are of the essence of public debate about our national health service, does my right hon. Friend, as a highly experienced parliamentarian, believe that what we witnessed from the Leader of the House last night was the clearest illustration of the Executive's arrogance and contempt for the House of Commons?
Sir Norman Fowler: I do. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not go back into the national health
190
service. Having done the Health Secretary's job for an unprecedented six years, I shall not tiptoe back into that area for the time being. However, my hon. Friend's point is correct.
What the Government are doing is disgraceful also because it represents such a reversal of attitude on the part of Home Office Ministers. They started by saying that they wanted the closest examination of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. They were anxious to have our suggestions and proposals. Now, at the last stage, in they come with the proposal that discussion should be guillotined.
The guillotine of the Immigration and Asylum Bill has no justification. The Bill has been dealt with in an entirely sensible way, and the issues have been debated fully and sensibly. There is no question about that. On our side the Bill was handled outstandingly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). Any member of the Standing Committee would endorse that. I can say with certainty that in the two-day debate on the remaining stages of the Bill, the approach would have been exactly the same. We were not planning to filibuster it into the small hours of the morning. There was no question of our doing that.
There is absolutely no justification for the Government's guillotining the Immigration and Asylum Bill. Up to now, they have blamed the last Conservative Government for any faults in the political asylum and immigration system. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who has come into the Chamber—I was going to put it more emotively—has no other speech. I have been listening to him, regrettably, for a year. He has no other form of words.
From now on, the defects in the Bill and in the system belong to the Government and to that set of Ministers. They have entire responsibility for the workings of the legislation, discussion of which they have wrongly curtailed.
Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has considerably greater experience in the House than I have. Can he recall any precedent for a Government pursuing a double guillotine policy—using one Bill as an excuse for curtailing discussion of another, as the Government are trying to do?
Sir Norman Fowler: I cannot, but that is not conclusive. Every Minister on the Front Bench has been looking over the procedures and the debates of the past 25 years to find such a precedent. Knowing the Government back-up, I think that there may well be a precedent, although I have never come across one.
I have also never come across a Government who begin with the Special Standing Committee procedure and then decide, halfway through, to guillotine the Bill. Of that there is no question. I can think of no such precedent, but doubtless the ministerial advisers will scuttle off to find one for us.
The issues go beyond that. Over the past two years the Government have been talking about modernising Parliament, although I do not always agree with the ideas that they put forward for modernisation. They keep talking about their commitment to open government and how they want to achieve the maximum accountability of

191
Parliament and Ministers to the public. They are entirely right to have those aspirations, because parliamentary democracy and political accountability are vital issues; in my view, none are more important.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and think that we would take the same stance on that issue, but there is no point in the Government using the language of parliamentary democracy and then behaving in this way, which is the opposite of parliamentary democracy. Week after week, they have made statements outside the House of Commons that should have been made inside it, and we all remember the statement on jury trials. They relegate Parliament by acting in such a way and, by tabling the guillotine motion, they have further devalued the parliamentary process. That is the essential charge against this bunch of Ministers and this Government.
There is no point in the Home Secretary coming to the House to talk about freedom of information only a few weeks after imposing an injunction on the whole of the British media. Equally, there is no point in the Government talking about modernising Parliament and increasing accountability when they have imposed a guillotine such as this. The guillotine is unjustified and an arrogant abuse of power, and such autocratic action will eventually destroy the Government's credibility.
5.37 pm
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I shall be extremely brief because, unlike Conservative Members, I want to discuss health. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) gave the game away when he said that the Opposition had no intention of filibustering the Immigration and Asylum Bill into the early hours of the morning. The truth is that that was precisely their intention for the Health Bill.
Yesterday, I sat through three hours of discussion on the opening group of amendments and I can say that the Opposition gave a completely new meaning to making a mountain out of a molehill—and it was an uncontroversial molehill at that. We heard repetition, exaggeration and ridiculous comments from Opposition Members. I made a brief intervention and it was referred to time and again—and, indeed, misrepresented. It was absolutely clear what Conservative Members were doing.
Mr. Brady rose—
Mr. Chisholm: I will not take interventions, because my speech will be very brief. I want to get on to the health debate.
I said yesterday—I was not making a general point about this Parliament in relation to the Scottish Parliament, although some people took it in that way—that we were witnessing self-indulgent time wasting. That was absolutely true. The Government's mantra is rights with responsibilities, and that is entirely wise. If we are protecting the rights of Back Benchers—normally, I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—we also have a responsibility to debate matters in a relevant and responsible way. That did not happen in the debate on the Health Bill yesterday.
5.39 pm
Mr. Charles Wardle: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) said that he would speak briefly, and he did, but he made it clear that his reaction to a difference of opinion in the House and to a desire to debate an issue is, unsurprisingly, a knee-jerk reaction. He wants debate closed down.
What a pleasure it is to be the speaker from the Conservative Benches who follows my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who is fresh from the Front Bench. I recall him expressing to me many years ago, when he was responsible for health matters, an ambition to involve himself in home affairs. He had been a home affairs correspondent of The Times, and he has had that opportunity. I am sure that the whole House wishes him and his family well now that they will be spending more time with each other.
I want to discuss the motion as it applies to the Immigration and Asylum Bill. I shall not comment on its application to the Health Bill, other than to say that the Secretary of State for Health seemed to depart from his normally cheerful demeanour, and to protest too much. Indeed, there was the merest hint of arrogance in what he had to say, which was disappointing.
Having heard your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to stick to the subject of the motion. As I was travelling with an all-party group on the day of the Second Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill, I shall resist the temptation to wade into other aspects of the Bill. Let me say, however, that this is a bad use of the guillotine, and that the Government have no serious justification for its introduction.
As both the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said earlier, all Governments use guillotines from time to time. The Leader of the House, fronting for the business managers, will say sagely that there is pressure on parliamentary time owing to the heavy legislative programme; but there is no reason for a House of Commons that does not discuss Government business on Fridays, and takes two-week spring recesses, suddenly to say solemnly that there is no time for it to debate a subject as important as this, and that we must press on. That is a bit of a joke.
As far as I can see, having followed its progress one stage removed, there has been no time-wasting on the Bill. As far as I know, no timetable motion was openly contemplated in the House last week. What happened yesterday resulted from the Government's pique about their disastrous showing in the European elections—coupled, I dare say, with a bit of good-natured teasing from the Opposition—and the Government's undoubted petulance about the extended debate on a single amendment to the Health Bill. It had nothing whatever to do with the Immigration and Asylum Bill. It is necessary to look further, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald did precisely that.
The Government were clearly sufficiently bothered by the very public setback that they had suffered from so many of their Back Benchers in regard to social security reforms that they did not want to allow time for another embarrassing ambush that could add to the concessions

193
already made by the Home Secretary. The timetable motion is really all about controlling the Government's own Back Benchers.
Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend referred to the Government's poor showing in the European elections. Does he agree that, once again, the Government are missing the point that the electorate tried to convey to them? I am talking not about just European policy, but about the Government's arrogance and contempt for parliamentary debate. It is partly because our population is so sick of a Government who will not listen and will not debate that they had that poor showing.
Mr. Wardle: I entirely agree, although I think that I would soon be in trouble with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I expanded on my hon. Friend's second point.
Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend said about the recent European elections, I feel that the constraint on debating time is ill judged. There is widespread public concern about the way in which immigration and asylum are spiralling out of control. The queues are becoming longer, and there are more illegal immigrants. Ordinary, fair-minded British people who are proud of the welcome that they extend to foreigners—people of all political persuasions—are understandably bothered by the drain on benefits, school places, health facilities and housing.
Many of those people—this is why the debate should be allowed an adequate airing on the Floor of the House—consider the root cause of the difficulties to be the Government's willingness to bend our immigration rules and modify our immigration controls at the behest of the European Union. A number of the illegal immigrants who have come here recently have come from eastern Europe, but a great many—wherever they have come from originally—have travelled through the European Union. That public concern was part of the reason for the voting pattern throughout the country in Labour's strongholds, as well as in Conservative strongholds, last Thursday, so it is unfair and unwise of the Government to curb debate on the Bill when it is on the Floor of the House.
I do not dispute that the Bill was closely examined in Committee. I am sure that it was right of the Home Secretary to press for a Special Standing Committee and to take expert advice, but the Secretary of State for Health was wrong to say, "Therefore, there is no need for the debate to continue on the Floor of the House." There were a limited number of right hon. and hon. Members on that Committee. Many others of us have something to say. There is not a person here who does not know that, apart from those experts, experienced witnesses and a few specialist reporters, the Committee stage hardly touched public awareness. That is all the more reason to have adequate time on Report.
Three particular aspects of the Bill will suffer from the lack of sufficient time on Report and Third Reading. First, the Bill needs to be challenged further because it is long on theory and short on practical detail. I know that that came out in Committee, but the Bill leaves much to be done by delegated legislation, subject to negative resolution. Those things should be challenged openly on the Floor of the House, where they can be heard.
My second concern was voiced by the Immigration Service Union, which said that the Bill opened the gate to softer, European-style controls. I give two examples.
194
One is that leave to enter with a visa will not be challengeable by an immigration officer. Not so many years ago, I saw countless immigration cases. There were often instances of the immigration officer looking at a perfectly valid visa and, after a few questions, discovering that circumstances had changed, or, indeed, that the visa had passed to someone else.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the point that he is making is not correct?
Mr. Wardle: I am grateful for that intervention, but I am sure that the Home Secretary, who has been positively delphic on that point, will agree that, over the years, there have been many cases of immigration officers discovering that there were reasons why someone should not, after all, be given leave to enter, even if he had a visa and prior entry clearance. If the Home Secretary is saying that, at the Committee stage, the ISU has been heeded and the matter has been taken on board, that is all well and good—it is all the more reason why it should be debated on the Floor of the House.
Similarly, if we should reach the stage—I am certainly not going to accuse the Home Secretary of wishing to get there himself in the immediate future—that was presaged by article 100c of the Maastricht treaty, which was before his time, when a standard visa format throughout the European Union was proposed whereby the suggestion could be made and adopted in the European Union that those European visas would be sufficient to ensure leave to enter this country, our immigration controls would be blown to pieces.
The third and final reason why time is needed for the debate is to focus still further, as the Committee has, on asylum problems, particularly concentrating on the twin pillars of the Geneva convention—the well-founded fear of persecution and the fact that a person can seek asylum only in the first safe country he reaches. That should be debated here, along with the fact of the queue, which, the Home Secretary must allow, has not gone away.
For all those reasons, it is iniquitous that a timetable motion has been slapped on the Bill and that there will not now be adequate time for a full and reasoned debate on the Floor of the House.
5.50 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle). He was a little hard on the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) who, even though he made only a short contribution to the debate yesterday, was the only Labour Back Bencher to make any contribution. Also, given that the first group of amendments was germane to the Scottish borders, it is worth pointing out that he was the only Scottish Member who bothered to make a contribution. At least he deserves some credit for having turned up.
I find it offensive and wrong for the Government to suggest that our proper debate of the Health Bill yesterday was, in any way, time wasting. If Labour Members, who have a responsibility to represent the interests of their constituents, particularly those north of the border, could not be bothered to turn up to register their concerns and

195
the views and interests of their constituents, there was all the more reason for Conservative Members to ensure that the new clauses, which had only just appeared, should be scrutinised and debated.
I no longer see the Minister of State in his place—he was here earlier. During his introductory remarks on new clause 18, his subsequent interventions and his reply to the debate he was unable to give the vital detail on which the Chamber should arrive at a judgment about the new clause. It was clear that it had been thought up late in the process and that little consideration had been given to it. It was tabled with minimal notice to hon. Members and, even the Minister did not realise its full implications.
In those circumstances, it is utterly astonishing that, after just a few short hours of debate yesterday, the Leader of the House should suggest that a vital piece of legislation, dealing with the national health service, could not be debated in proper detail because, apparently, a short debate had taken place on one or two new clauses which had only just been made available to hon. Members to express a view.
Mr. Fabricant: Was not it ironic that new clause 18, on which we spent a long time, was a Government new clause, tabled at the very last moment? If the Government were so concerned about saving time, why did they not table the new clause in Committee?
Mr. Brady: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend, who spoke yesterday and did his duty as a Member of the House to try to scrutinise a piece of ill-considered legislation, is right to point out that it was a Government new clause. It was introduced late in the day and took up time which would otherwise have been available to debate other elements of the Bill. It is utterly outrageous. [Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) in a moment.
Fiona Mactaggart indicated dissent.
Mr. Brady: I thought that the hon. Lady wanted to intervene. No doubt she would have been in trouble with her Whips Office had she done so. [Interruption.] I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you did not hear as well as I did what was uttered as the hon. Lady left the Chamber.
It is unacceptable for right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench to suggest that it was wrong for Conservative Members who did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee to devote their time and resources to scrutinising the legislation. It is doubly disappointing that those of us who were not on the Committee and who, quite properly, participated on Report—as hon. Members are entitled and have a responsibility to do—should be criticised for such participation.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend recalls accurately the proceedings of yesterday evening. Does he recall that, during consideration of new clause 18, the Minister of State gave no impression that he had even seen or studied the new clause let alone digested its contents before coming to the Chamber? Does my hon. Friend accept that, as a naturally charitable individual, as he and I pressed
196
the Minister to explain the rationale for and content of the new clause, the analogy of cruelty to dumb animals sprung to mind?
Mr. Brady: I shall not be drawn by my hon. Friend.
Had the Secretary of State taken the trouble to attend the Chamber yesterday and witnessed the performance of the Minister of State who, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, did not appear to be acquainted with the new clause and still less with its implications or detail, he might have taken a different view from the rather facile opinions he so arrogantly expressed earlier. Had the Leader of the House been present to see that those on the Government Front Bench advanced no meaningful argument and that Government Back Benchers, in their typical fashion, said virtually nothing, the Government might not persist in the ludicrous assertion of time wasting. Some hon. Members take seriously their responsibility to scrutinise and debate legislation.
Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend interested to know that during the entire course of the Committee stage only one Government Back Bencher made a speech—and then only briefly? Not one of the other Government Back Benchers made a contribution.
Mr. Colin Pickthall: The hon. Gentleman said that a moment ago.
Mr. Fabricant: No. I said nothing about the Committee stage. The hon. Gentleman was not listening.
Mr. Brady: That is an important point. My experience of Standing Committees is almost invariably the same. There is no real effort made by Labour Members to scrutinise legislation introduced by their Government so it comes as no great surprise to find that they should make similarly little effort to do the job for which they were sent here by their constituents during proceedings on the Health Bill.
It is bad enough to find that there was little scrutiny by Labour Members in Committee, that new clauses are being introduced by the Government and that there is no effort by Labour Members to scrutinise them on Report, but it is utterly unacceptable for Labour Members, particularly the Secretary of State for Health, who should know better, to criticise Opposition Members for doing what we have been sent here to do. We are exercising our right to scrutinise ill-judged legislation that has been introduced without thought.
I was delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) demonstrating how seriously he takes his responsibilities so soon after joining us on the Back Benches. Far from seeing it as an opportunity to put his feet up, he was immediately bringing the benefit of his experience and beliefs to the Chamber. It is a bit rich for the Secretary of State for Health to laugh at the record of my right hon. Friend given that he did not even bother to turn up for the scrutiny of his own Bill. Much as he may chunter from a sedentary position, he has done himself no credit by his performance yesterday in claiming that there were more important things for him to do—he has not enlightened us as to what they may have been—or in his brief contribution today when all he could do was attack hon. Members who do

197
their duty. He did not list the constituencies of Labour Members who did not bother to represent their constituents in the Scottish border area. Those constituents may have had some concerns about the implications of new clause 18 for expenditure on health services for Scottish taxpayers.
Although those Labour Members were not here for last night's debate, the Secretary of State thinks that it is shameful that Opposition Members should be trying to do their job. He does not think that it is shameful that some of the silent bodies sitting behind him have failed to examine the detail of the Health Bill.
Mr. Dobson: Why did the Opposition not divide on new clause 18?
Mr. Brady: The Secretary of State seems to think that he has hit on a clever point—perhaps for the first time—in suggesting that, if the Opposition do not press an amendment to a Division, it should not be debated. He clearly fails to understand that Governments can benefit from proper scrutiny of their own amendments, even if there is not a Division on those amendments. He fails to understand that point because he does not understand the purpose of Parliament and of parliamentary debate.
Mr. Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Has he noted that some of the Government amendments on today's selection list were tabled as a consequence of debate and discussion in Committee?
Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. It is a relief to know that the Secretary of State is prepared, occasionally, to listen to good sense. He has not often been willing to do that, and he is certainly not prepared to do so today. The crux of the matter is that he is not prepared to give the House time properly to scrutinise new legislation and Government new clauses, which have not been thought through by Health Ministers and have not yet been properly scrutinised by the House.
Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is an irony in the situation? If we had pressed new clause 18 to a Division, the Secretary of State would have accused the Opposition of wasting time. He would have said, "We had such a large parliamentary majority that we were bound to win; therefore, for 20 minutes, we wasted time on a Division." He cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend is almost certainly right. The Government's belief that the parliamentary process is an inconvenience for the nation, rather than an asset, is another illustration of their arrogance.
As I said in last night's debate—I now echo the comments of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for whom I have the greatest respect—if Ministers had understood that they could gain from proper scrutiny in the House, they would not have even contemplated proposing this type of guillotine. Ministers
198
are refusing to listen to debate, to the views of Opposition Members, or—perhaps just as ba—to the views of Labour Members.
Ms Diane Abbott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brady: The hon. Lady is an honourable exception, and I shall give way to her.
Ms Abbott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is new to the House. If he were not new, and had been in the House during the 18 years of Tory Government, he would not be so quick to hurl accusations of Government arrogance or about the failure of Government Back Benchers to subject legislation to proper scrutiny. Although I cannot speak for my colleagues, or about other Bills, in Committee, I subjected the Immigration and Asylum Bill to the most energetic scrutiny. I am now anxious to get on and to debate the two Bills, and regret that Opposition Members are wasting time on debating the guillotine.
Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I trust that, as she wants to have proper time to debate the Immigration and Asylum Bill, she will vote against the guillotine. In the same way as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) suggested that it was wrong to oppose the guillotine motion, as he wanted to have time to debate the Bill's substantive matter, the hon. Lady is making an illogical assertion. If she wants proper time to debate the Immigration and Asylum Bill—just as I should like proper time to debate the Health Bill—she should oppose the guillotine.
Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield was cautious in replying to my intervention on the point, he said that, in his experience, it is unprecedented to attempt to guillotine debate on a Bill by using an excuse that is entirely unconnected with that legislation. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) should oppose the guillotine particularly for that reason. Attempting to impose such a guillotine is a serious travesty of the House's rules of procedure, and is an attempt to undermine proper debate in the House and our ability to scrutinise legislation. The Government's attempt is utterly transparent, and they should be ashamed of themselves for even contemplating trying to stifle debate on the Immigration and Asylum Bill by using such a device, which is utterly wrong.
Last night, if Ministers had said that they wished to timetable debate on the Health Bill, we might have been able to debate the matter. They could have said, "We have reasons for imposing a guillotine", and we could have said, "No, you're wrong to propose imposing one." The Opposition might have been able to object to timetabling the Health Bill by saying that we needed more time to debate the more than 20 groups of amendments that have not been debated. If Ministers had done so, it would have become apparent to everyone that the Government were trying to stifle debate on the Health Bill.
The Government have, however, gone one step beyond that, by saying that yesterday's imagined slow progress in debating Government amendments to the Health Bill—which were tabled with very little notice—justifies stifling debate on the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which is a Home Office matter. Such an assertion is staggering.

199
The Government's attempt to use a double guillotine has nothing at all to do with the Health Bill. Ministers are simply trying to limit the inconvenience and embarrassment that they would suffer if some of their own Back Benchers—the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington may be among them—were able to express their convictions about Government legislation to which they objected. All Governments should occasionally face embarrassment. That is why the United Kingdom has an open democratic process which enables the House to debate such matters. It is also why Government Back Benchers are able to express their views, if they have the courage to do so. The Government's attempt to stop that process is not only an abuse of parliamentary debate and of the House's rights and responsibilities, but utterly transparent.
It is staggering that the Government should seek to curtail debate in such a manner. It simply demonstrates the Government's massive abdication of responsibility. Ministers should welcome proper scrutiny and debate of the matters dealt with in the Bills. However, perhaps even more worrying than the Government's abdication of their own responsibility is their failure to allow the Opposition to do what the Opposition should do: ensure that the groups of amendments to the Health Bill—which take up almost two pages in the provisional selection of amendments—are properly debated.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) mentioned the significant matter of doctors' hours. However, the Secretary of State suggested that it was not possible to find time to debate that important subject in the House. The subject is not only important to doctors—who are being forced to work unreasonably long hours—but is a matter of the gravest concern to the entire population of the United Kingdom. On admission to hospital, members of the public may discover that they are being treated by a doctor who, although he or she may have the highest professional standards, has been awake for countless hours, staggering—as my right hon. and learned Friend said—through the night.
The rich irony, which will not be lost on the medical profession or on members of the public who observe our debates, is that the plight of doctors—who might be expected to work not only until 10 o'clock at night or midnight, but throughout the night and the next day—could not be properly aired in debate on the Bill's relevant clauses because Labour Members were not prepared to provide time to debate those clauses or to work beyond 10 o'clock.
It is deeply disturbing that the Secretary of State for Health and other Labour Members—who, when in opposition, always sought to take enormous party political advantage from the national health service—are now manifestly failing in their stewardship and management of the health service. In the past, Labour Members sought to gain party advantage by making huge play of issues such as junior doctors' hours, yet they now want longer working hours to be permitted in Europe. It is pathetic that the Government do not have the courage to allow a proper debate on that and I have nothing but contempt for their approach.
Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend as interested as I am in noticing that, while all the Conservative members of
200
the Committee are present, not one Labour member of the Committee, apart from the Front Benchers, has bothered to turn up? [HON. MEMBERS: "There's one."] I see that the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) has now appeared. Well done to her. Let her name go down in the record. I presume that they chose to serve on the Committee to scrutinise the Bill. Why have they not chosen to scrutinise the guillotine motion or the two pages of amendments that are before us on Report?
Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) made herself known so that she at least could gain credit.
Mr. Paul Truswell: May I also correct the observations of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)? I, too, was a member of the Standing Committee. Would the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) like to comment on the accuracy of his hon. Friend's observations? I hope that such accuracy does not characterise the rest of his contributions to the debate.
Mr. Brady: If Labour Members failed to make any impression in Committee, I can hardly blame my hon. Friend for not having noticed whether they were there, or indeed whether they are here this evening. At least two Labour members of the Committee have brought themselves to the Chamber this evening. I see that the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) is also claiming credit for being present, but he is a Parliamentary Private Secretary and has doubtless been asked to sit there for particular reasons.
It is important that Labour Members take their responsibilities as Members of Parliament seriously. If only two of the 14 or 15 Labour Back Benchers who were members of the Committee are able to bring themselves to the Chamber this evening—they were not here yesterday evening for the substantive debate on the Bill—that is a poor performance.
I had hoped to be able to speak yesterday evening on the amendments dealing with rationing of health care, particularly because several constituents have raised concerns with me on that. Yesterday alone I had three letters expressing concerns that I had hoped to have time to raise during consideration in the Chamber. One was about the proposed closure of two of the three wards at Altrincham general hospital and another was from someone who had voted Labour all his life but wrote to say how much he regretted his decision because he felt so profoundly let down by the performance of the Secretary of State for Health.
If the Government persist in denying debate, closing their ears to what is going on around them and ignoring the real concerns of Members of Parliament—concerns that are reflected in the country, which is losing all faith in the ability of Labour Ministers to manage the national health service—they will pay the price. Only if they are prepared to listen to the concerns that my constituents wanted me to raise in the debate will the Government avoid making foolish mistakes and letting down their constituents and mine while they have the stewardship of the country.
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said that I was a relatively new Member of Parliament. That is true and I do not for a moment deny

201
that when my party was in government it sought to guillotine business on many occasions. Some of my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), have distinguished records of opposing such motions regardless of who was seeking to manage the time of the House inappropriately. Labour Members may wish to give some consideration to my observation that one reason why the public became rather sick of the Conservative Government towards the end of our 18 years was a perception that we were arrogant and not prepared to listen. There was a feeling that we would push policies through regardless of concerns. Staggeringly, in just two years the Labour Government have scaled giddy heights of arrogance and contempt for the public and Parliament that I do not believe that the Conservative Government ever reached. If the Government do not understand what they are doing and do not pay heed to my warning, they will pay the price.
6.15 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has given us the most eloquent expression of what we understand by representative democracy and a parliamentary system. Ours is a system of debate. Governments put propositions to the House, seeking legislative rights. We test those propositions. That backwards and forwards process has been at the heart of our democratic system for more than 100 years.
I well remember the rage and anger of Labour Members when they were in opposition as it became clear to them that the guillotine had become a central feature of the Executive's control of the House. I do not mean to be dismissive of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), but she has been muttering and angrily expressing derision at the fact that we have been debating the guillotine motion for an hour and three quarters. The debate is scheduled to go on for three hours.
Fiona Mactaggart: My anger is not about the fact that we are debating the motion, but about the quality of the debate and the way in which some hon. Members have chosen to contribute, which has, in most cases, been highly hypocritical. I exempt the hon. Gentleman from that criticism.
Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Lady is very gracious. In the years that I have been here I have learned that it is not appropriate for me to judge the quality of another's speech. Some of us are more inarticulate than others. It is the genuineness that rings through what hon. Members say that affects and informs our judgments. I would be hesitant to question the quality of another's speech.
The indignation of the then Labour Opposition against the device of the guillotine seemed true and palpable. We know that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich spoke with a true voice, because she has repeated from the Government Benches what she said in opposition. All the raging in past Parliaments of those who now adorn the Government Front Bench, arguing and fighting against the imposition of a guillotine, which is the curtailment of freedom of speech and of the representative right to express a view, comes to nought in the end. That is the cynicism of our parliamentary processes.
202
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) flitted in for two minutes to tell us that the debate was a waste of her opportunity to debate the substantive issues in the Bills. Everyone knows that the Opposition are not imposing a guillotine, but the hon. Lady will vote for the imposition of a restriction on the opportunity to speak.
That is the cynicism that informs this debate. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Health know in their hearts the futility of their position, given that they presented themselves to the electorate as new Labour with new politics and said that the old ways would not prevail: they would be part of the regeneration of British politics and British parliamentary democracy. We now know that to be a foo-fa; it is nonsense. This is now a repetitive process.
There is no question but that the motion is odious. The Secretary of State tried to argue for a guillotine on the Health Bill but the Government have tried to take away time from a proper guillotine consideration by including another Bill. If we address the two guillotine motions equally, instead of the traditional entitlement of the House, as set out in Standing Orders, to discuss a guillotine motion for three hours, we effectively have only an hour and a half for each.
These are the new developments of procedure. The Government are not entirely responsible for twin measures on a guillotine motion, but they are responsible for a total curtailment of debate, so that the five hours on the Health Bill are really only two hours. The Labour party seems quite happy with that. The implications reverberate slowly, trickling through to a wider public who see the sheer cynicism of a Government who profoundly believe that a soundbite is of itself legislation, which it is not.
Every hon. Member who has been here for more than one Parliament knows that the grind of parliamentary business is an attempt to examine some—we do not go through everything line by line or word by word—of the principles that are expressed, for good government, by all Governments through their legislative programmes.
The motion says:
"Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading of the Health Bill [Lords] shall be completed at the sitting this day and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion."
That is not a happy thought—two hours are what the Government think sufficient to dispose of this business.
I find that incredible, as Madam Speaker has made a provisional selection of 22 groups of amendments even before we get to Third Reading; but let us do away with Third Reading. Why not? After all, the Government have expressed their view on the matter and there are now enough unrepresentative Labour representatives to close their ears and eyes and support this proceeding. They may genuinely believe in all the details of the legislation, but they support the proceeding that prevents the Opposition—any Opposition—from discussing the matter.
Without a Third Reading, we would have an average of five and a half minutes on each group of amendments. Madam Speaker took the trouble to give subject titles to the groups. The first is
"Clinical freedom and restrictions on prescribing",

203
which is the resumed debate on new clauses 4, 14, 16 and 17. The issues are great and weighty.
The next group is entitled:
"Discrimination in the NHS on grounds of disability, race, sex etc."
That is important to many hon. Members and to many of our constituents and workers in the NHS. New clause 7 and amendments Nos. 78, 83, 80, 172, 81, 79 and 82 are all to be disposed of—if we average the time available—in five and a half minutes.
Mr. Chisholm: If the Opposition think the amendments so important, why did they sabotage debate on them yesterday, and why are they sabotaging debate on them today?
Mr. Shepherd: I will continue, if I may.
The second group is set aside in that short time. Were he to take the debate himself, the Secretary of State would barely have time to enunciate the new clause and the amendments and the Opposition would barely have time to respond to his enunciation. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who made a remarkable speech, would not even get a look-in, because the two Front Benchers, excluding every other hon. Member, would have disposed of the matter in five and a half minutes.
Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman is wrong, because the new clauses about which he feels so strongly were tabled by the Liberal Democrats, so we would have had the opportunity to speak, in the very short time that he and his colleagues left us for debate, and he will have done himself out of that opportunity by speaking at such length against the guillotine.
Mr. Shepherd: I am not doing anyone out of any time in speaking to the motion. I am not the originator of this ferocious guillotine. I rather suspect that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very new Member, will vote for the motion.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall said that he would like a timetable. I have reflected on timetables for a long time. Where was the balance of the argument in the poll tax legislation? As the Bill developed, we began to see how unworkable it was. It started by asking why a dustman should pay less than a duke but eventually transferred its principle to asking why everyone should not pay something. How, in embarking on a large Bill, can one know where the weight of the argument will develop?
Dr. Howard Stoate: The hon. Gentleman seems to be under the impression that the motion has to be debated for three hours, but does he not understand that the sooner we finish with the motion, the longer we will have available, within the five hours, to debate the substantive amendments on the Health Bill, which I agree entirely are extremely important to the House?
Mr. Shepherd: I am not responsible for the guillotine motion. The question is better directed to the Secretary of State for Health, the Home Secretary and the Leader
204
of the House; they tabled the motion. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman voting against the motion, which of course he will not do.
The third title is
"Health care and energy efficiency schemes".
It concerns new clause 8, which is a Government new clause. We have five and a half minutes on that.
Mr. Dobson: It is a Liberal Democrat new clause.
Mr. Shepherd: If the Secretary of State can explain the distinction to the wider world, we will be grateful.

The next group is entitled,
"Manpower planning in the NHS and protection of professional qualifications".
That is clearly too trivial a matter to detain the House on Report. The group consists of new clauses 9 and 19 and amendments Nos. 1 and 129.
Then we move on to the group of amendments on the
"right to second opinion on diagnosis or treatment".
It contains new clauses 11 and 12. That is what the Government wish to condense into 60 minutes, twice over. The next group is entitled:
"Health and safety of NHS doctors (maximum hours of work, etc.)".
It contains new clauses 13 and 28, plus amendment No. 180. It will be dispensed with in five and a half minutes, if the Government have their way.
The next group is entitled:
"Duty of confidentiality (patients under 18)".
It contains new clause 20. No constituent who has come to my surgery to express concern on either side of the argument has been able to condense the most minimal approach to that question into five and a half minutes. Indeed, it has often taken more than an hour.
The next group deals with "Waiting times". My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) mentioned that issue, as did the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. It is crucial and important to the well-being of what for many of us is perhaps the most important expression of the state in the social circumstances of our life. It too will get five and a half minutes.
The next group is entitled:
"Regulation of independent hospitals"—
and it contains new clause 22 and amendment No. 114. It will get only five and a half minutes. The following group is entitled:
"Abolition of fund-holding and power to withdraw from Primary Care Trusts".
It contains new clause 23 and amendments Nos. 107, 108, 143 and 144. It will be dealt with in only five and a half minutes.
The next group is entitled:
"Duty to promote partnership with private sector".
That is something on which the Government are keen. Many of us share the Government's objectives and others are cautious about them, but the subject will get only an average time of five and half minutes.
The next group is entitled:
"Establishment of Primary Care Trusts (consultation etc.)".

205
It would almost take me five and a half minutes just to read out the amendments in the group, but they will have to be disposed of in that time. The group contains amendments Nos. 109, 111, 112, 181, 110 and 113, and Government amendments Nos. 53 and 54. Not content with the savage truncation of the debate of a free and representative Parliament, the Government believe that the next group of amendments, entitled
"Primary Care Trusts (provision of services)",
can be dispatched in five and a half minutes.
Then we come to the group entitled "Drafting and miscellaneous". We know that our liberties are often in the detail and the devil is certainly in the detail. The Government will argue that the amendments in this group are technical, but each one will require clarification. The group contains Government amendments Nos. 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 32, 37, 39, 105, 44, 45, 48, 52, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 72, 73, and 74.
Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that if my calculations are correct, that would allow just under 7 seconds to debate each amendment?
Mr. Shepherd: I am bemused that my hon. Friend has taken the trouble to notice the nonsense that the Government have placed on the Order Paper, no doubt to the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Slough.
Next we would come to the group entitled
"Remuneration for Part II services".
It contains Government amendments Nos. 13 and 14, amendment No. 128, and Government amendments Nos. 15, 16, 40, 41, 42, 43, 56, 67, 69, 71, 75 and 76. Will we have adequate time? The Government have still more business to discharge through our process in this forum. The group entitled "Local Representative Committees" contains amendment No. 115, Government amendments Nos. 94, 95, 96, amendments Nos. 116 and 117, Government amendments Nos. 97, 98, 99, amendment No. 118, Government amendments Nos. 100 and 101, amendment No. 119, Government amendment No. 102, amendment No. 120, and Government amendments Nos. 103 and 104. None of this will be treated seriously by a wider public if all that business is thrown through in 120 minutes, excluding a debate on Third Reading.
We have not yet finished. The next group is entitled:
"Health Improvement Plans for London".
The Secretary of State for Health is an elected representative for a London constituency. The group contains amendments Nos. 4 and 3, but perhaps they do not merit discussion. The next group is entitled "Joint Consultative Committees" and it contains amendments Nos. 138 and 142. The next group is called "Pharmaceutical Price Controls". Some of these are big issues, as the House knows. The amendments are not frivolous: they are important. However, the Government feel that Government amendments Nos. 23 and 24, amendments Nos. 93, 178 and 92, Government amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, amendment No. 179 and Government amendments Nos. 33, 34, 35, 36 and 38 can be disposed of in minutes.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Is not the hon. Gentleman illustrating a serious point that is not related to the guillotine? It is
206
the practice that has grown up under both Governments—I have been in the Chair and watched hundreds of Government amendments being moved by Ministers in the previous Government—of producing legislation that has to be updated by the Government. Is not that a sign that our parliamentary draftsmen have some homework to do before we can desist?
Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Lady is right and her experience as a Chairman on the Speaker's Panel, and her long years of service in the House, underline the great urgency with which legislative ideas are often thrown together and presented to the House, giving rise to the need for subsequent amendment to make them workable or even slightly comprehensible to the lay reader. The legislation is no longer meant for the lay reader and it is beyond the reach of ordinary citizens to understand what the Government intend.
The next group of amendments is entitled:
"Regulation of ancillary health professions".
It contains amendments Nos. 145, 167, 77, 169, 6, 162, 163, 164, 91 and 165. The next group is called "Devolution issues (Scotland)". We are fortunate in having the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) present. No doubt he would wish to contribute vigorously to the debate on amendments Nos. 183, 184 and 168, Government amendment No. 49 and amendment No. 185, because they touch on Scotland.
Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend realise that if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith wished to contribute to the debate on that group of amendments, he would have only 63 seconds per amendment?
Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We would come next to the group entitled "Devolution issues (Wales)". I have cast my eye round the Chamber and I cannot see a Welsh Member, except for a Whip.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), is here.
Mr. Shepherd: My apologies. No doubt the Under-Secretary would move Government amendments Nos. 50 and 51.
So much for the Speaker's selection of amendments that the motion would require us to dispose of in two hours. A debate on Third Reading is also required, of course.
Mr. Tyler: I have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said, and with the comments of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). However, given that calculations are being made, will he say how many amendments we could have discussed in the 25 minutes during which he has addressed the House?
Mr. Shepherd: I had always thought that Cornishmen were canny and could understand the thrust of an argument. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not responsible for the guillotine motion but that I am endeavouring to criticise it. I do not know how I can put

207
it more plainly, so that the hon. Gentleman can understand that we are in this dire position because the Government wish to truncate debate to two hours.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall knows that Standing Orders set out the regime for guillotines, and they allocate three hours for debate on such motions. However, the Government want to blackmail—if I may use such unparliamentary language—the House into shutting up and forgetting its responsibilities as a representative institution. That is not acceptable to some of us. I know how easily a great majority can change Standing Orders, but until that happens we will remain unable to debate a guillotine motion for longer.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend mentioned the Speaker's selection, with which members of the public may not be familiar. Will he confirm that the amendments included in that selection are deemed to be relevant and important, either because they have not been debated in Committee or because they are new?
Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend: that is indeed the rationale behind the selection.
So far, we have debated only the first part of the guillotine motion. The second part states:
"Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the second allotted day."
That is less grand that it sounds: two full parliamentary days seems a long time, but they begin immediately after the conclusion of this debate.
I was generous in calculating that an average of five and a half minutes would be available for debate on each group of amendments. Hon. Members are entitled to express dissent if they so judge, so each of the 82 amendments and new clauses, not all of which are technical, could be voted on. That would be a grim prospect, as it would take up all the time available for debate on the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
There is also a Speaker's selection of amendments and new clauses for the Immigration and Asylum Bill, a measure that is very sensitive for many hon. Members, as it deals with the treatment of human beings in distress. I know that Labour Members are exercised about that. Their party's historical role has been to represent the fears of the oppressed and to understand the needs of people in the most dire of circumstances. It has done that more sensitively than any other party.
Conservative Members are not naive and know that many of the proposals in the Bill test the patience and sympathy of a wide section of the British public. I would not want to have to judge between asylum applications that are genuine and those that are fabricated. The Labour party's heritage is its history as a guardian of safety for the waves of people who came to this country to escape, for example, the pogroms in eastern Europe and Russia at the turn of the century. The Labour party has welcomed them: to its shame, the Conservative party has been less sensitive to people's circumstances and less aware of what
208
they could contribute here. Many immigrants have become an essential ingredient in this country's greatness. We have been the beneficiaries of immigration.
The Government have pulled out some bottom-drawer proposals first put forward by a previous Government. However, I respect the need of many Labour Members and those of my colleagues who are fair minded and who want to examine some of the contentions on which the Bill is based. If the responses on Report were not satisfactory, those hon. Members would want to say, on Third Reading, why they consider that the Bill did not deserve to be "read the Third time". The essence of parliamentary democracy is that hon. Members should be able to reject proposals if they judge that necessary.
How have the Government addressed that tradition? The Speaker's selection groups amendments and new clauses according to their effect on the Bill. Those groups concern the treatment of certain over-stayers, the removal of asylum claimants, facilitation of entry, European Economic Area nationals, and support for children—which all hon. Members know is a sensitive matter. The selection also covers restrictions on employment, general support arrangements for asylum seekers and miscellaneous and consequential amendments.
This latter category includes Government amendments Nos. 32, 33 to 38, 47 to 49, 74, 77 to 80, 83 to 89, 94, 119 to 123, 125 to 133, 135 to 138, and 140 to 142.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has referred to the importance of Third Reading. Does he agree that a timetable motion that precludes discussion or description of any amendment or new clause prevents hon. Members on either side from determining whether or not to support a Bill, because the information simply is not available to them?
Mr. Shepherd: That is the infamy of guillotine motions. My right hon. and learned Friend's intervention makes me nervous. If I were to repeat in their entirety all the amendments on which we might vote, I might deprive the House and the nation of the opportunity to hear my right hon. and learned Friend speak.
Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Every cloud—
Mr. Shepherd:—has a silver lining. A better silver lining would result if the Government reflected on the monstrosity of their guillotine motion.
There are amendments relating to codes of practice and procedures for preventing the carriage of clandestine entrants—Government amendment No. 39, amendment No. 9, Government amendments Nos. 40 and 41, amendment No. 11, and Government amendments Nos. 42 and 45. Codes of practice are of considerable importance, so those amendments deserve proper attention.
Further amendments have been selected on charges for passengers without proper documentation—amendments Nos. 145, 146, 147, 148, Government amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 46, and amendment No. 149. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald alluded to the penalties that might arise from that part of the Bill. There are amendments on bail hearings, a subject in which I am particularly interested. Amendments

209
Nos. 13 and 14 relate to victims of torture and detainees with children. On appeals, adjudicators and the immigration appeal tribunal, we have Government amendments Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 97 to 116—I shall not list all of those individually—and 124 and 134.
I have tried to follow the Government's logic in hooking a second guillotine motion to the first. I cannot find the thread in the Speaker's selection that might have led the Government to believe that their soundbites should be reduced to such contempt for the representative and democratic process. On support arrangements for asylum seekers and accommodation, Madam Speaker has selected amendments Nos. 18, 17, 20, 21 and 22. On support arrangements for asylum seekers and interim provisions, she has selected Government amendments Nos. 69 and 95 and Government new schedule 1. On support arrangements for asylum seekers and essential living needs, she has selected amendment No. 143.
Finally, there are amendments on powers of search, arrest, and finger-printing. I know that there is a great distaste for civil liberties these days, and the drum beat is always to give the authorities the right to do things that we traditionally looked at askance. The Home Secretary puffs out his cheeks at that, and I know how irritating all this must be when one is Secretary of State of a great Department that deals with many matters. However, the powers of search, arrest and finger-printing are covered by Government amendments Nos. 75, 76, 81, 82, 90, 117 and 118. After all these amendments, Third Reading would follow. This process cannot be said to be reasonable.
By listing the amendments to be considered by the House, I have tried to set out how absurd it is that any Government of any party should treat the House with the contempt implicit in the Government's derisory dismissal of these great issues. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich correctly said that the business managers want to get through more business and have many important things to do. However, in recalling my 20 years in the House I can think of few pieces of legislation that were crucial to the well-being of the nation. There were few that shaped the decades ahead of them. Most that did were concentrated in the highly contentious and difficult early years of Lady Thatcher's Governments. Gosh, they were bitterly opposed. Guillotines were imposed, and Members on the current Government Front Bench vigorously opposed them with all the fervour with which they now take me aback by promoting them.
Life is like that. Perhaps in the detail of Bills and the actions implicit in the actions proposed by Government we can find the truth. I hope that the Government will realise a truth today. No matter what the outcome of the guillotine motion, I hope that they will not produce such a lamentable motion again. I urge anyone with any spirit to go through the Lobby against the motion, or at least to abstain.
6.57 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Last night at 10 pm, the Leader of the House told us that a guillotine would be applied. We were debating new clause 4 on clinical freedom and restrictions of prescribing. We were trying to make the Secretary of State admit that there is rationing in the health service, in the hope that the
210
Government would do something to alleviate it. If the Leader of the House had not come here last night, I would have read a letter from a constituent of mine that goes to the heart of our debate. Our debate about time means that I cannot debate the real issue fully. As we are not debating the Health Bill, but a guillotine motion instead, I shall read only a little of the letter, but it is highly relevant.
My constituent wrote:
"I am an ovarian cancer patient. I have been treated at Stoke Hospital but unfortunately after trying two types of chemotherapy my oncologist could not offer me any more treatment even though I feel 100 per cent. better than I did six months ago. Because I am only forty one and have a young family I asked for Taxol"—
a drug known to many hon. Members—
"which has very good results only to be told Staffs don't fund Taxol and if they did I wouldn't get it when there are so many people waiting for hip operations. As a result of this I decided to go for a 2nd opinion and am now seeing an oncologist".
My constituent believes that she will have to pay for Taxol.
Many of my hon. Friends have received similar letters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has received hundreds of letters like that, and they demonstrate that rationing exists. However, all that the Secretary of State can do today—he did not bother to turn up at any sitting of the Standing Committee—is talk to his Front—Bench colleagues. He is not listening to what any of us are saying. Finally, he had to be overruled by the High Court, which said that his imposition of rationing—he does not use that word—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman is discussing the subject matter of the Bill, rather than the timetable. He must speak to the motion.
Mr. Fabricant: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is simply that so many issues that were discussed in the Health Bill Standing Committee need to be discussed again on Report and at Third Reading.
My hon. Friend and near neighbour the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) listed the groups of amendments selected by Madam Speaker. He calculated that the timetable would allow five and a half minutes to discuss each group. As he said, it is not his opinion or even merely our opinion that the clauses are worth discussing; it is Madam Speaker's opinion. Many more clauses and amendments were tabled and published by the House authorities. Those selected were merely a few that Madam Speaker chose. She felt, on behalf of the House, that they ought to be debated this day for the sake of parliamentary democracy, which means for the sake of those people who elect us to this place.
We all realised that we might well have to debate into the early hours of the morning. I think that all of us were girding our loins. Ladies in the Tea Room asked me whether they would get much overtime and if the debate would go until 4 am or 5 am. While one can argue, as I might, that 4 am is not the best time to debate such issues because of human circadian rhythm—
Miss Widdecombe: It is better than not debating them at all.
Mr. Fabricant: Exactly, but that seems to be a common theme under this Government.

211
Government new clause 18 was the first issue that we debated last night—a tidying-up clause. Perhaps it was minor and technical, which is how the Secretary of State described all the clauses chosen for debate today. New clause 18 was important and it had to be discussed. If the issue was so minor and technical, as the Secretary of State claims, why did he not produce the new clause in Committee? It is not fair to blame the parliamentary draftsmen; it is passing the buck. We have worked with them and in particular the lady who wrote the explanatory notes and who did so much good and sterling work in the past few weeks in Committee. It is not the parliamentary draftsman but the Government who are at fault.
The very wording of new clause 18 is typical. The first line states:
"Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide"—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We agreed new clause 18. I was in the Chair last night. It is away—gone and lost for ever. The hon. Gentleman must stick to the timetable motion.
Mr. Fabricant: You know that it is not gone and lost for ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it has been added to the Bill and will be discussed on Third Reading, with which this motion is concerned. Therefore, I think that it is relevant, but I will not try your patience. I simply point out that the new clause and other amendments in this and other Bills presented by the Government constantly provide for secondary legislation upstairs in the form of statutory instruments.
In the past, what was contained in a Government Bill was clear. It contained the information that people needed to know, such as how it would operate. Now we find not Henry VIII clauses but what I would call blank-cheque clauses. Those state that the issues will not be discussed on the Floor of the House and passed on Third Reading, but will be discussed in a brief one and a half hour debate in Committee.
Time is pressing. We are to have two hours to debate Third Reading and all the clauses that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills enunciated at length—it was right that he did so. This is not parliamentary democracy and it is not why I came to the House in 1992. It is not the reason why one single Member of Parliament in this House was elected. If hon. Members vote for this guillotine motion, it will not only be a betrayal of the electors who elected them but of their own principles that brought them here.
7.6 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: What we are talking about and what has been exercising my right hon. and hon. Friends is an institutionalised stifling of debate. We are considering two important Bills. They are very different, but they both contain important issues, which still need to be debated by the whole House. They have one theme in common—the extensive use of delegated legislation and the reservation of powers to Ministers. I will speak first on the Health Bill, about which I inevitably know a little more.
212
The Secretary of State told us in his opening remarks that the Health Bill had been thoroughly debated in Committee. How does he know? He was not there. He did not attend the Standing Committee once, not even for a courtesy visit.

Health was the Government's keynote policy. It was one of the issues that they used to persuade the electorate at the last general election. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House were expecting the Bill to be a major part of the Government's programme. However, as we have seen, the Government are afraid to debate their failures. If anyone doubts that health is one of their failures, they need only to have seen the graphics displayed on BBC television on Sunday night during the election programmes, which showed how the Government's ratings with the general public have fallen further and faster on health than on any other matter.
The Government are good at publishing glossy White Papers and consultation documents and they are good at issuing press releases—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking not about the issues but the timetable.
Mr. Hammond: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall attempt to show that vital issues remain to be discussed, despite the debate in the House of Lords and in Committee, which must be debated on the Floor of the House.
The Government have delayed all along. They delayed between issuing the White Paper in December 1997 and publishing the Bill for initial consideration by hon. Members at the beginning of this year. They maximised the gap before the reality bit—the period of time when the airy language of the White Paper could be circulated and before it was shot down by the harsh reality of what is in the Bill. During that period, it is fair to say that many people in the professions connected with medicine supported what the Government were doing and liked what they saw in the White Paper. However, that changed rapidly and dramatically when they read the detail of the Bill. As the Bill progressed through the House, those professionals came to us because they relied on us, during Report and at Third Reading, to raise the concerns that still exist after the Bill's extensive consideration. The Government could not get the Bill right, even though it had a year in gestation. The Bill deals with realities, not merely the aspirations expressed in the White Paper.
When the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, it had 54 clauses and 66 pages. The Bill before us this evening contains 68 clauses and 106 pages. The Government made it up as they went along. They are still making it up now; even during the past few days, they have tabled new clauses and substantive amendments. We must have the opportunity to scrutinise those provisions in detail.
Last night, the Leader of the House said, with a flourish, that the Government had given advance notice of their intention to table a clause containing the provisions in new clause 18. She implied that, in some way, that made it less necessary for us to consider and debate that matter. She referred to a letter from the Minister of State about tabling that new clause, but that letter indicated the Minister's intention to table the clause

213
in Committee. The first that we saw of the new clause was when it was introduced last week; none of us had a formal opportunity to scrutinise it until yesterday.
The right hon. Lady also said that the 82 Government amendments were largely technical. I appreciate that she is not able to follow every Bill in detail as it progresses through the House, but she was not correct in saying that.
The Government amendments tabled to address local representative committees are far from technical; they amount to a reversal of the position that the Government took up in Committee on a new clause that was—incidentally—tabled extremely late and was unable to be debated adequately in Committee. In relation to pharmaceutical pricing, the Government have taken on board at least some of the points made by the Opposition in Committee. However, we certainly needed the opportunity to explore those points further.
Several vital issues were included in the Bill as a result of cross-party initiatives in the House of Lords, such as the regulation of private health care, on which the Secretary of State slipped out a press release at 3 o'clock this morning—no doubt thinking that we would be debating the subject at that time; and the transition from primary care groups to primary care trusts. In Committee, the Government used their majority to delete those provisions, so we will now have to send the Bill back to the House of Lords with their lordships' carefully considered and well-argued provisions deleted, without our having had the opportunity to debate on the Floor of this House the reasons for the Government's action.
There is an arrogance about what the Government did yesterday and today. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that Governments always try to avoid scrutiny. I am sure that she is right. However, in this case, the effort to avoid scrutiny is dangerously misplaced; it is clear from the evidence of the passage of the Health Bill through the House so far that it benefited greatly from the scrutiny that it received. The Government fear proper consideration of the issues because that exposes the gap between their rhetoric and the reality that drives their actions tonight.
It is apparent that the Government regard the beauty sleep of Ministers as more important than debate on hospital waiting lists, in which my right hon. and hon. Friends would have been able to probe the alternative solution of considering hospital waiting times. Ministers' sleep is more important than establishing proper relationships between the NHS and the private sector, so that both can benefit. It is more important than the scandal of junior doctors' working hours, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) touched on during his speech. It is more important than allaying the widespread fears and anxieties of GPs as to the transition mechanisms for primary care trusts.
We have been unfortunate in that the Health Bill and the Immigration and Asylum Bill were side by side in this week's business. There was no need at all for the Government to stop the business at 10 o'clock last night. They could have allowed the debate on the Health Bill to run on through the night without risking, in any way, the progress of the Immigration and Asylum Bill today. However, their business managers seized the opportunity to use that excuse to curtail debate on the Immigration and Asylum Bill. There was no excuse whatever for
214
dragging that Bill into what was, in essence, a health dispute. Those Labour Members who were likely to prove awkward in respect of the Immigration and Asylum Bill had already been sent off on their gardening leave for the appropriate days. No member of the Government wanted to risk any slippage in the timetable.
I am conscious of the fact that I need to leave enough time for the Home Secretary to respond to the debate, but this has been a very shabby episode indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) used the word "pique", which I had already written down in my notes. The whole matter smacks of pique. The Government are acting like a school bully who was given a thumping on Sunday evening and came into the Chamber on Monday determined to throw his weight around, in a desperate effort to reassert himself—or perhaps I should say "herself'. However, in that process, the Government have proclaimed their contempt for Parliament; they have reasserted their determination to undermine and marginalise this House. I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the timetable motion.
7.16 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I begin on what is, I hope, a harmonious note in what has otherwise been a rather discordant debate. It is rare to see a Member on either Front Bench making a seamless transition from one portfolio to another in the course of a single debate. However, that is the honour that has befallen the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I congratulate her on her appointment as shadow Home Secretary. She brings to that position a comprehensive—indeed, daunting—knowledge of many aspects of the work of the Home Office. I wish her well and look forward to many constructive engagements.
I also offer my good wishes to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who has just retired as shadow Home Secretary. Although we have held many arguments across the Floor of the House, I thank him for the way in which he has conducted those arguments, and for the many private conversations that we have held—as is inevitable and necessary with the work of the Home Office. I also send him my good wishes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made some important points about guillotine motions with which I agree. I accept her point that debate in the House is at its best when it is allowed to flow freely, where there is give and take, and where there is a real dialectical process—I do not use the phrase in a mocking sense—in which propositions are put forward and countered, and progress is made in the thinking of hon. Members on both sides of the House. For that reason, I say—I hope that these remarks will not be taken down, although I accept that they will be—that I have had some reservations about the limit on speeches that has been instituted. The best part of a debate is when one is challenged—either by one's own side or by opponents. That is what makes debate in the House so different from debate almost anywhere else.

215
That said, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich is right in another respect: on occasion, all Governments have to resort to guillotine motions. The Labour Government are no exception to that rule—any more than the previous Conservative Government were.
Mr. Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: I shall do so in a second.
Governments resort to guillotine motions when it is not possible to reach agreement through the usual channels on the broad timetable for debates.
I give way to the hon. Member for Lichfield, but I ask him to be brief because time is limited.
Mr. Fabricant: Why did the Government have to up stumps so early last night; and, if that had to be done, why did it have to be done at 10 o'clock? Why not midnight, 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock, which would have allowed us to debate more amendments?
Mr. Straw: I shall come to that point, but let me first finish my more general point.
All Governments have to resort to guillotines when it is not possible to reach a sensible agreement with the Opposition. In the early stages of a 17-year period on the Opposition Front Bench, I, like my colleagues, thought that it would impress the electorate if we filibustered debates. We used the same and well-tried technique as the Opposition used last night, in which colleagues support each other—it is actually quite entertaining and we impress each other, if no one else. I was a party to the use of those techniques and, for quite some time, thought that it would convince our constituents that we were doing the business for them. We used to use similarly high-flown phrases about the end of parliamentary democracy as we knew it and words like "arrogance" when the Government tried to stop us. However, after a while, I discovered that the good people of Blackburn were not terribly impressed.
Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the failure to reach a sensible agreement, but any failure in respect of any Bill was confined to the Health Bill. Why has he imposed a guillotine on the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which had not been tested in debate on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Straw: Let me come to that point later, along with the point raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant).
As I was saying, I remember the Duke of York activities and our discovery that they were less impressive than we had thought. Towards the end of my sojourn on the Opposition Front Bench, I strove hard and usually successfully, even on very contentious Bills, to reach agreement with people renowned outside the House and even among their own junior Ministers—I should point out that I did not share the view—for not being entirely reasonable. I endeavoured to reach agreement on the conduct of debates, and the debates were the better for that and far more impressive than the Opposition running debates through the night.
216
That brings me to the question of why both Bills have been included in one guillotine motion. Anyone who was in the House last night, as I was, listening to and observing the debate, and anyone who missed that great delight and has had to read the Official Report, will have noted that there was a most serious filibuster. There is no dispute about that—
Mr. David Amess: There was not.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman, whom I greatly admire and who is also an Essex man, protests too much—of course there was a filibuster going on and there is no point in getting into a terrible lather about it.
The Opposition had been told on three occasions, without protesting once, that there would be one day for Report and Third Reading of the Health Bill, yet the whole of yesterday was used up debating only a tiny part of that Bill, with no prospect of agreement with the usual channels on the remainder of the Bill. Despite continuing discussions, no undertakings had been forthcoming, and it was becoming palpably clear that, even if we had gone through the night, which would not have impressed anyone, there was no prospect of finishing the Health Bill before the end of the week—still less commencing and finishing proceedings on the Immigration and Asylum Bill. That is why we regretfully had to adopt the procedure of guillotining two Bills in one motion.
The right hon. Members for Maidstone and The Weald and for Sutton Coldfield are not suffering from total amnesia: they have some vague recollection of the period before 1 May 1997, when they were members of a Government. They have had to admit that, every so often and always with regret, the previous Government introduced guillotine motions, and that, because they were adornments on the Treasury Bench for much of that time, they had to vote for them.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said that the Conservatives did not guillotine the sort of Bills that we are guillotining. He said—I paraphrase, but not completely—that they guillotined only really nasty Bills that everyone opposed, and that they did not guillotine soft and cuddly Bills—like the Immigration and Asylum Bill, I suppose. I am sorry to have to disabuse the right hon. Gentleman, but one of the Bills that was guillotined by his Government was one for which there was serious all-party support and which has, on the whole, stood the test of time: on 26 November 1989, the Children Bill was guillotined. There have been few less controversial Bills than that, but it was guillotined.
That brings us to the central charge levelled by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. As a supporter of and then a member of the Conservative Government, she has form and previous convictions for having, time and again, traipsed through the Lobby to vote for a guillotine motion. To try to distinguish her previous convictions from the form that the Labour Government are clocking up, she says that there is a difference between a guillotine motion that guillotines only one Bill and one that guillotines two. She asked, not once, not twice, but three times: when did the previous Government go for a double guillotine? Well, I can tell her when they did that.
To spare the right hon. Lady's blushes, I have not gone back over the full 18 years of Conservative rule; I have taken my evidence only from the middle of 1987,

217
when she became a Member of Parliament. On 11 November 1988, the School Boards (Scotland) Bill and the Housing Bill were guillotined in a double motion. On 26 November 1989, the Children Bill was guillotined with the Companies Bill. I should point out to the hon. Member for Aldridge—Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) that, at 167 clauses, there were more clauses in the Companies Bill, which was a single part of that double bill, than are contained in the Health Bill and the Immigration and Asylum Bill combined.
Barely was the ink dry on the double guillotine motion of 26 November 1989 than, two weeks later, November, the Local Government and Housing Bill and the Employment Bill were guillotined together. Finally, to confirm that double guillotines were a serious habit of the Conservative Government, on 13 March 1992, the Finance Bill and the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill were guillotined together.
I have checked the record, in recognition of the possibility that on each of those occasions—November 1988, October 1989, November 1989 and March 1992—the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald might have been absent from the House. After all, she might have been sent on a trip by her right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the then Home Secretary. However, I have to inform her that she is plainly suffering from the most profound amnesia, for on every single occasion that the House was invited by the Conservative Government of which she was a member to vote for a double guillotine, she went into the Lobby to do so. She did not miss a single occasion, so strong was her support for the concept of the double guillotine. [Interruption.] One of my colleagues suggests that the right hon. Lady is a recidivist.
As a Home Office Minister, the right hon. Lady introduced courses in Her Majesty's establishments to address offending behaviour. Before one can address such behaviour, one must admit one's guilt. If people are in denial so complete that they have no knowledge of committing an offence, they cannot go on courses to address their offending behaviour. In her ministerial capacity, the right hon. Lady stressed that, if prisoners did not participate in courses to address their offending behaviour, they could not earn parole and early release. I regret that the right hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends will have a slow release from the labours of Opposition if they continue in this way.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich that 18 years of opposition was a hard school. There are two ways to oppose the Government. The first is to run at the wall. We tried that method for quite a long time—for too long—and wondered why we had a sore head and why no one was terribly impressed. The second is to debate matters properly, agreeing sensible timetable motions with the Government of the day. That is what we decided to do and, as a result, the then Government achieved its business program and the conduct of parliamentary business improved.
Both of the Bills before us have been the subject of thorough discussion, and the Immigration and Asylum Bill has been considered in a Special Standing Committee. I believe that this motion is entirely justified.
Question put:
The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 145.

Division No. 205]

[7.32 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Corston, Ms Jean

Ainger, Nick

Cousins, Jim

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cranston, Ross

Alexander, Douglas

Crausby, David

Allen, Graham

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Cummings, John

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Ashton, Joe

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Atherton, Ms Candy

Dalyell, Tarn

Atkins, Charlotte

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Barnes, Harry

Darvill, Keith

Barron, Kevin

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Battle, John

Davidson, Ian

Beard, Nigel

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Begg, Miss Anne

Dawson, Hilton

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Denham, John

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Dismore, Andrew

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Dobbin, Jim

Bennett, Andrew F

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Berry, Roger

Donohoe, Brian H

Best, Harold

Doran, Frank

Betts, Clive

Dowd, Jim

Blackman, Liz

Drew, David

Blears, Ms Hazel

Drown, Ms Julia

Blizzard, Bob

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Boateng, Paul

Edwards, Huw

Borrow, David

Efford, Clive

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Fisher, Mark

Bradshaw, Ben

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Flint, Caroline

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Browne, Desmond

Foulkes, George

Buck, Ms Karen

Galbraith, Sam

Burden, Richard

Galloway, George

Burgon, Colin

Gapes, Mike

Butler, Mrs Christine

Gardiner, Barry

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Gerrard, Neil

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Godsiff, Roger

Cann, Jamie

Goggins, Paul

Caton, Martin

Golding, Mrs Llin

Cawsey, Ian

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Chaytor, David

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Grocott, Bruce

Clapham, Michael

Gunnell, John

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hain, Peter

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hanson, David

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Clelland, David

Healey, John

Clwyd, Ann

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Coaker, Vernon

Heppell, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hesford, Stephen

Cohen, Harry

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Coleman, Iain

Hill, Keith

Colman, Tony

Hinchliffe, David

Connarty, Michael

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Hoey, Kate

Corbett, Robin

Home Robertson, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hood, Jimmy

219

Hoon, Geoffrey

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hope, Phil

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Mountford, Kali

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Mudie, George

Howells, Dr Kim

Mullin, Chris

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hurst, Alan

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hutton, John

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Iddon, Dr Brian

Norris, Dan

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

O'Neill, Martin

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Jamieson, David

Palmer, Dr Nick

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Pearson, Ian

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Pendry, Tom

Pickthall, Colin

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Pike, Peter L

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Plaskitt, James

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Pope, Greg

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Primarolo, Dawn

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Prosser, Gwyn

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Purchase, Ken

Khabra, Piara S

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Kidney, David

Radice, Giles

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Rammell, Bill

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Kumar Dr Ashok

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Laxton, Bob

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Lepper, David

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Leslie, Christopher

Rooker, Jeff

Levitt, Tom

Rooney, Terry

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Rowlands, Ted

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Roy, Frank

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Ruane, Chris

Linton, Martin

Ruddock, Joan

Livingstone, Ken

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Ryan, Ms Joan

Lock, David

Sarwar, Mohammad

McAllion, John

Savidge, Malcolm

McAvoy, Thomas

Sawford, Phil

McCabe, Steve

Sedgemore, Brain

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Shaw, Jonathan

Sheerman, Barry

Macdonald, Calum

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McDonnell, John

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McFall, John

Skinner, Dennis

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

McIsaac, Shona

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

McLeish, Henry

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

McNulty, Tony

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mallaber, Judy

Snape, Peter

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Soley, Clive

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Southworth, Ms Helen

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Squire, Ms Rachel

Martlew, Eric

Steinberg, Gerry

Maxton, John

Stevenson, George

Meale, Alan

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Merron, Gillian

Stinchcombe, Paul

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Stott, Roger

Miller, Andrew

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Moffatt, Laura

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Stringer, Graham

Moran, Ms Margaret

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Morley, Elliot

Sutcliffe, Gerry

220

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Wicks, Malcolm

Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Temple—Morris, Peter

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Timms, Stephen

Wills, Michael

Tipping, Paddy

Winnick, David

Touhig, Don

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Trickett, Jon

Wise, Audrey

Truswell, Paul

Wood, Mike

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Woolas, Phil

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Worthington, Tony

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Vaz, Keith

Wyatt, Derek

Walley, Ms Joan

Ward, Ms Claire

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Kevin Hughes and Jane Kennedy.

Wareing, Robert N

White, Brian

NOES

Allan, Richard

Hammond, Philip

Amess, David

Hancock, Mike

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Harris, Dr Evan

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Harvey, Nick

Baker, Norman

Hawkins, Nick

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Heald, Oliver

Bercow, John

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Beresford, Sir Paul

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Boswell, Tim

Horam, John

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Brady, Graham

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Brake, Tom

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Brazier, Julian

Jenkin, Bernard

Browning, Mrs Angela

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Keetch, Paul

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Key, Robert

Burnett, John

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Burstow, Paul

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Butterfill, John

Kirkwood, Archy

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Cash, William

Lansley, Andrew

Chidgey, David

Leigh, Edward

Clappison, James

Letwin, Oliver

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Livsey, Richard

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Loughton, Tim

Cotter, Brian

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Evans, Nigel

McLoughlin, Patrick

Faber, David

Madel, Sir David

Fabricant, Michael

Malins, Humfrey

Fallon, Michael

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Fearn, Ronnie

Moore, Michael

Flight, Howard

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Nicholls, Patrick

Foster, Don (Bath)

Norman, Archie

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Oaten, Mark

Fraser, Christopher

Öpik, Lembit

Garnier, Edward

Ottaway, Richard

Gibb, Nick

Paice, James

Gill, Christopher

Paterson, Owen

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Prior, David

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Randall, John

Gray, James

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Green, Damian

Rendel, David

Greenway, John

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Grieve, Dominic

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

221

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

St Aubyn, Nick

Trend, Michael

Sanders, Adrian

Tyler, Paul

Sayeed, Jonathan

Tyrie, Andrew

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Viggers, Peter

Shepherd, Richard

Walter, Robert

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Wardle, Charles

Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

Waterson, Nigel

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Webb, Steve

Soames, Nicholas

Wells, Bowen

Spicer, Sir Michael

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Spring, Richard

Whittingdale, John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Steen, Anthony

Willis, Phil

Streeter, Gary

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Stunell, Andrew

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Syms, Robert

Yeo, Tim

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Stephen Day and Mr. Tim Collings.

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Health Bill [Lords] and the Immigration and Asylum Bill—

Timetable
1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading of the Health Bill [Lords] shall be completed at the sitting this day and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the second allotted day.

Questions to be put
2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings on either of the Bills to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(3) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

Miscellaneous
3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings—

(a) on the Health Bill [Lords];

222

(b) on the Immigration and Asylum Bill at the sitting this day until midnight;

(c) on the Immigration and Asylum Bill on the second allotted day;

and those proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House.
4.—(1) If at the sitting this day—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to seven o'clock, and

(b) proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time,

the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until midnight.
(2) If on the second allotted day a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over to seven o'clock or from an earlier day, the Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on either of the Bills.
6. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on either of the Bills are taken or to recommit either of the Bills; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
7. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to either of the Bills except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
8. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
9. If at the sitting this day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on this Motion or on either of the Bills, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Interpretation
10. In this Order 'allotted day' means this day and any other day on which the Immigration and Asylum Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.
Dr. Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assume that the Government intend, later in the debate, to introduce the issue of their consultation paper on the regulation of the private health care system, which was promised before further progress was made on the Bill. I was concerned that the document was not available to me in the Vote Office, although it has been published, and it has not been sent to Front-Bench spokespersons. I know that it is available only because copies that were sent to a Labour Back Bencher who chairs the Select Committee on Health arrived in my office by mistake. I should be grateful for your guidance as to whether it is appropriate and in order for the Government to refer to a document that has been published but which Opposition Front-Bench Members have not had a chance to read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair, but I hope that Ministers will look into it.

Orders of the Day
  Health Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
New Clause 4

  CRITERIA FOR APPRAISALS BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EXCELLENCE
  "The Special Health Authority known as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence shall make its appraisals of different treatments and clinical interventions on the basis of clinical efficacy or relative cost-effectiveness compared with alternative treatments or clinical interventions for the same symptoms, but not on the basis of their affordability in relation to the funds available to the National Health Service."—[Dr. Harris.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Question proposed, [14 June], That the clause be read a Second time.
  7.46 pm
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I remind the House that with this we are discussing new clause 14—National Institute for Clinical Excellence (duties and consultation with public)—
  '.—(1) The Special Health Authority known as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (the "Authority") shall meet in public.
  (2) The Authority shall publish annually a report on its activities during the preceding calendar year which the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall establish a public consultative committee in relation to the Authority, which shall have the duty of advising the Authority on the public's view on the priority to be accorded to different treatments and clinical interventions within the NHS.
  (4) The constitution and membership of the committee mentioned in subsection (3) shall be such as the Secretary of State may determine in Regulations.'.
  New clause 16—Protection of doctors' clinical freedom to prescribe appropriate drugs—
  '.—The Secretary of State shall not exercise his powers to include a drug in schedule 11 to the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 (as subsequently amended) in such a way as to restrict the circumstances in which the drug may be prescribed by reference to the different underlying causes of the symptoms for whose treatment it is clinically effective.'.
  New clause 17—Cost or affordability not to be criteria for restricting prescribing of drugs.—
  '.—In issuing guidance on prescribing, or in exercising his powers to include a drug in schedule 10 (drugs and other substances not to be prescribed for supply under pharmaceutical services) or schedule 11 (drugs to be prescribed under pharmaceutical services only in certain circumstances) to the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 (as subsequently amended), the Secretary of State shall not base his decision on the criterion of either the cost or the affordability of the drug in question.'.
  Mr. John Bercow: The House will be delighted to learn that last night I was bringing my remarks, which had necessarily to be brief, to a conclusion when an untimely interruption to our business took place. I am happy to round up my remarks now.
  224
  We are concerned about the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the new clauses relating thereto. I have made the point before, and I underline it now, that there is interest in, but considerable concern about, the future direction of the national institute. It is for the Minister of State to assuage our concerns.
  Will NICE be genuinely independent, given the framework agreement—to use the Minister's term—within which it will have to operate? Will it be possible for the national institute, when it is up and running, to exercise its own judgment without interference, public or private, from Health Ministers or Department officials acting on their behalf?
  Will the Minister assure us that the national institute's assessments of treatments for conditions will take into account not only clinical cost-effectiveness but other costs that should properly form part of the equation? Will it be able to consider, make a judgment on, and draw up recommendations based on the social costs of opting for, or of failing to provide, one treatment or another? Those are crucial judgments at the heart of the new clauses.
  Yesterday evening, in the absence of any significant contribution to the debate from Labour Members, it was left to Conservative Members to represent their constituents' interests and to scrutinise the Executive. We had a little assistance from Liberal Democrat Members, and it would be churlish to deny that. The Minister of State had a relatively easy time as he listened to us. This evening, we need to hear from him. What are his answers to our questions? What form will the body take? Can he produce the evidence? Is he capable of assuaging the legitimate concerns of the official Opposition, of the Liberal Democrats, and much more important, of millions of people throughout the country who are waiting to find out what sort of creature NICE is? We have made our case, and await a response.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): We had a lengthy debate on the new clauses last night and important issues have been raised, although some of those were fully explored in Committee. I shall try to deal with some of the issues that were raised in last night's debate.
  The casual observer of the debate might think that the Bill is about the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which has been established in the proper way as a special health authority. Given the way in which the Bill intermeshes with other reforms that the Government are carrying through, it is understandable that hon. Members have sought to debate NICE and its relationship to other health reforms.
  As we have made clear on numerous occasions, NICE will play a key role in modernising the NHS and driving up standards within it. The intention is that the national institute will issue authoritative guidance to health professionals, and help to ensure the faster and more uniform uptake of clinically effective and cost-effective treatments. New clause 14 tabled by the Liberal Democrats deals with a number of separate issues. Subsection (1) would require NICE to hold its meetings in public. It is entirely right that there should be openness and transparency in the workings of NICE. During the debate on the establishment of NICE we made a commitment to extend the Public Bodies (Access to Meetings) Act 1960 to incorporate the National Institute

  225
  for Clinical Excellence. We are doing that. We are currently preparing a statutory instrument to ensure that NICE will be subject to the 1960 Act. In practice, that means that meetings will generally be open to the public, but allows them to be excluded where publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the business or for other special reason.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful remarks. On the qualification point, which I understand, can he give us an assurance that if there are to be times when NICE will meet in secret for the reasons that he has given, a record of the meeting and its conclusions will be available to the public at a later stage? I understand that occasionally a meeting may need to be held in secret.
  Mr. Denham: I am sure that normal procedures with regard to publication of records of meetings of public bodies would apply. I imagine—the matter is probably worthy of further examination—that if the information would be of great commercial importance to the companies whose products were being appraised, great care should be taken by me this evening not to give the impression that the position of those companies would be lightly undermined. I am sure that normal procedures for public bodies would otherwise apply.
  Subsection (2) of new clause 14 would require NICE to publish an annual report, and would require the Secretary of State to lay the report before Parliament. It has also long been the Government's intention that NICE should publish an annual report, and that, as is common practice, the report should be made available to Parliament. We do not need primary legislation to do that. It will be achieved through directions issued by the Secretary of State.
  The national institute is a special health authority established in secondary legislation under the National Health Service Act 1977 and, accordingly, directions are the appropriate way forward. Subsections (3) and (4) confuse the role of NICE and the guidance that it will issue with the way in which priorities are set in the NHS. That goes to the heart of part of the debate last night.
  By developing a consistent body of guidance on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different treatments and procedures, NICE will play an important role in tackling unjustified variations in access to treatment and it will provide valuable information on which clinicians, the Government and others in the NHS will make their decisions. NICE will, we believe, help to ensure that the most clinically effective and cost-effective treatments are widely available, without the delays that have accompanied the introduction of effective treatments in the past. However, we do not intend that NICE should become a substitute for the decisions that clinicians and others must take. That was the point raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
  Ministers are accountable for setting overall priorities for the NHS and, on occasion, for setting specific priorities—for example, the priority that we attach to the coronary heart disease national service framework. We have also given a particular priority to smoking cessation. Ministers are and must remain accountable for those decisions. On the example of smoking, as we discussed
  226
  in Committee, there is a substantial body of work on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation. As it happens, that guidance predates NICE, but is the sort of guidance that might be issued by NICE in the future. I believe that it is right that we should establish NICE to make such information available. I also believe that it is right that in such a case it is the Government who set the priorities.
  However, not all such decisions are taken by Government. Clinicians must also take important decisions about the treatments that are best for their patients and, in so doing, they want information about clinical and cost-effectiveness. NICE will provide that information, but NICE has no power to determine what decision is taken in each individual case. If a drug or treatment were ruled out on the NHS, that could be done only by the Government, and therefore by Ministers, as is the case at present.
  The Liberal Democrats seem to want to transfer both the general responsibility of Government and the specific individual decisions of clinicians to NICE. That is what I understand to be the role of the patients forum that the Liberal Democrats want to establish. That is not the role that we intend NICE to play. I do not believe that it is the role NICE should play, whether it is advised by a committee of patients or not.
  Of course, patients and their representatives have an important role in shaping the way in which NICE approaches its task. That is reflected in the way that patients are represented on the partners council. Through the council patients will help to ensure that the guidance that NICE issues is as good as it can be, and that NICE produces its guidance in a form that all groups can best understand. We want the information to be accessible to patients as well as to clinicians, and they will help to ensure that the voice of patients and other important stakeholders will be heard at the heart of the national institute.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that only the Government would be in a position—ultimately, I presume he means—to rule out the provision of treatments. Assuming that in some circumstances the national institute might judge that a particular treatment was not cost-effective and should not therefore be provided, is the hon. Gentleman referring to a situation in which NICE has one view and the Government have another? If so, is NICE obliged to accept some form of collective responsibility, or is it entitled to make it clear that although it defers to the Government, it disagrees with the Government's decision?
  Mr. Denham: The point that I was making is straightforward. Perhaps I can best deal with it by turning to new clause 4, which covers it. As I said in Committee, NICE will operate within a framework agreement set by the Secretary of State.
  We are committed to ensuring that that framework, and any other guidance from the Secretary of State, is open and transparent. It will be clear where the Government have given guidance, if they did so. We made it clear in the appraisal document, "Faster Access to Modern Treatment", that there may be circumstances in which NICE concludes that a particular procedure should not generally be available on the NHS, because of its lack of clinical or cost-effectiveness or because alternative procedures are simply and clearly more effective.

  227
  We would expect health authorities, primary care groups and primary care trusts, NHS trusts and clinicians to take full account of such guidance, but it is important to make it clear that NICE will have no power to reach and impose a decision on what is or is not available. If, having read NICE guidance, Ministers concluded that it should be enforced by regulation, it must remain the responsibility of Ministers to take such a decision and be accountable for it.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: The Minister has several times used the phrase "cost-effectiveness". Can he elaborate on what he means by that? When he asks NICE to consider various treatments for the same symptom or disorder, it is clear how he will measure the cost-effectiveness, but how will he measure the cost-effectiveness of a treatment for cancer against the cost-effectiveness of a hip replacement?
  8 pm
  Mr. Denham: The point is that it will be for NICE to make the judgments and to explain how it has reached the judgments that it will provide on particular treatments or interventions. If it compares different approaches to treating a particular condition, it must also explain how it has assessed those approaches, one against the other, and reached its conclusions. That is the role that we will look to the national institute to play in making the appraisals that we have asked it to make. Professor Michael Rawlins, the widely respected chairman of the national institute, will play a role in developing the methodologies that will enable that to be done effectively, which is one reason why we want substantial expertise to be available to the national institute.
  Mr. Bercow: That was a nice try, but I am afraid that it will not suffice. The Minister has provided an excellent answer to a question that I did not ask, but, unfortunately, he has not provided an answer to the question I asked. If he does not mind, I will choose the questions and I should be very grateful if he would provide the answers. The situation to which I am referring is one in which NICE concludes that it believes that a treatment should be provided, but the Government decide otherwise. If the Government insist on getting their own way, will NICE be at liberty publicly to declare its disagreement with the Government's decision? That is my question.
  Mr. Denham: It is absolutely our intention that the appraisals carried out by NICE will be public appraisals. If the national institute produces an appraisal suggesting that a particular drug should be used in particular circumstances and the Government of the day decide that that drug should not be used, that decision will be there for people to see. They will be able to compare the published appraisal of the national institute with the decision taken by Ministers. I hope that I can make some progress, because some other important issues were raised. I turn to new clauses 16 and 17.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I thank the Minister for giving way and, to save time on my reply, may I press him on the nub of new clause 4? I should like to hear from him the following words:
  228
  NICE will not be asked to take into account overall cost or affordability in its calculations and appraisals and will stick strictly—as the hon. Gentleman has already said, although he has not yet limited it to this—to clinical effectiveness and relative cost-effectiveness.
  Mr. Denham: I risk repeating what I said several times over in Committee. Some months ago, we published a document on the appraisal techniques to be used by the national institute. We received a wide range of responses, some of which said that NICE must take into account almost every penny of NHS resources and apply a particular procedure to that. Others took the position that NICE should take no account even of cost-effectiveness, let alone wider NHS resources. I said in Committee that we were considering the responses to the consultation and we will decide in due course what factors we will ask NICE to take into account. I have made an important promise this evening, and have repeated what I said in Committee. The key point is that the framework that we establish for NICE and any guidance that is issued to it will be open and transparent. I am repeating a commitment made in Committee.
  Mr. Hammond rose—
  Mr. Denham: I am somewhat in the hands of the hon. Gentleman, but I had assumed that the House would want to discuss more than one issue this evening. I shall give way to him once more and then perhaps I can make progress.
  Mr. Hammond: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will he acknowledge that the question that he has ducked is extremely important? We cannot consider how NICE will operate in practice until we know the answer to it. If NICE will simply consider on a comparative basis the cost of providing a given outcome in a given situation, that will be beneficial—no one would disagree with that—but if it is to be asked to look at different outcomes to different situations and weigh them against each other, that will clearly be a rationing mechanism, which is what Conservative Members have suspected all along. We must know the answer.
  Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman persists in missing the fundamental point, which is that NICE will provide the guidance sought by clinicians and others in the health service about how they take decisions. They will wish to know, and they will know, on what basis the national institute has reached those decisions and they will be able to take that into account in responding to the guidance. I shall move on—
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way on that point?
  Mr. Denham: No, I will resist the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) spoke for over an hour last night. [Interruption.] I may have been present for part of that discussion, and I think that it would be fairer to respond to the points that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has already made and with which I have not yet had a chance to deal.

  229
  I turn to new clauses 16 and 17, which would restrict the Secretary of State's freedom to take decisions about which medicines should be prescribable by general practitioners under the NHS. The Liberal Democrats are in a somewhat confusing situation: they are seeking to establish a patients forum to determine what drugs should be available on the NHS and, at the same time, they are tabling new clauses which would remove from any Government the ability to take decisions about which medicines should be prescribable.
  Schedule 11 to the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 lists drugs that can be prescribed under the NHS only in certain circumstances. For example, clobazam can be prescribed only for the treatment of epilepsy, not as a sedative or tranquilliser, but there are good reasons for that. Clobazam offers clinical benefit in treating epilepsy, yet it is a far more expensive sedative or tranquilliser than similar drugs which have the same properties. At current prices, a packet of 30 clobazam tablets costs about £10, but a similar-sized packet of diazepam costs no more than a few pence. It would be ridiculous, I suggest, to countenance the use of clobazam as a sedative when other, equally effective treatments are available much more cheaply. The new clause would make it impossible for a Government to continue to use that provision.
  That schedule, subject to parliamentary acceptance of the necessary regulations, will be used to restrict the prescribing of treatments for impotence from 1 July. In this instance, it is proposed that treatment will be available to categories of men with specified underlying organic causes of impotence.
  New clause 17 strikes at the heart of the Government's ability to influence or control the costs of prescribing and would constrain even the Secretary of State's ability to issue guidance. He could not say to doctors, for example, "Think about the cost of this medicine when you are considering prescribing it." He could not even point out that an equally effective medicine was available at lower cost. That would be plainly absurd. It would also constrain his ability to make regulations that would either prevent GPs from prescribing things on the NHS or restrict the circumstances in which they should do so. New clause 17 would undermine the purposes of schedules 10 and 11 to the GMS regulations. The majority of the products in those schedules appear as a result of advice from two committees: the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs and the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances.
  I hope that I have covered the core issues if not the detailed issues that have been raised. We were invited yesterday to agree that the NHS rations; I do not agree with that. We were also invited to agree that rationing is defined as sharing out in fixed quantities; that is precisely what the NHS does not do. We do not each have a fixed quantity of NHS resources. What we use and what we gain from the NHS varies according to our own life histories and ill-health. That is precisely the reason why we reject language that is used only by those who seek to undermine the NHS and put a private health service in its place.
  Dr. Harris: I am afraid that that reply varied from disappointing to very disappointing. The Minister is usually correct in his facts, but during a debate, mainly on Liberal Democrat new clauses and amendments, lasting nearly six hours, I spoke for 45 minutes and took
  230
  eight interventions—a greater number than he was able to take in his reply. I regret that he would not take the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), our Front-Bench spokesman, which he has been good enough to do in the past.
  On new clause 4, it is clear that the Government are hiding their answer behind a consultation process. I believe that primary legislation—this may be our only opportunity to discuss this issue on that basis during the current Parliament—should take precedence over consultation. It will not do for the Government to try to hide their position behind a consultation process in which, according to the Minister himself—I think that he understood this point—there would be extremes of view. People, certainly including clinicians and patients' organisations, are desperate to know whether the Government are minded to allow guidance to come from a professional body on the basis of affordability or of overall costs. As the Government have not allowed us a separate debate, this is our best opportunity to find that out.
  The Government say that it is for them to regulate on the basis of guidance from the institute—guidance which will bind neither them nor individual clinicians. We fear, however, that this Government or other Governments may say, "We must look at the guidance from the professionals. We would be foolish to ignore it." We are keen to ensure that a professional body—or, at least, a body that is informed by experts and by professional advice—is not forced by the Government to consider matters that should be solely the Government's remit, and that the Government are not allowed to hide behind such arrangements.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: About a year ago, when the Government asked the health service pay review bodies what they wanted to do, the Government set a precedent by telling the pay review bodies that they must take account of cost before recommending the level of salaries. That is a bad precedent, but it look as if the Government will go down the same road in relation to advice on rationing.
  Dr. Harris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Because the Government will not rule out that option, professionals and friends of the health service must look at the Government's form—and, as far as the NHS is concerned, the Government have previously sought to run away from their responsibilities for the fact that the service is desperately short of funds.
  The Minister refused to answer another question, which was asked badly by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) but which I shall put in a different way. If the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has to look at just the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of drugs and treatments, will it be able to criticise Government policy—such as the Government's obsession with waiting lists—on the ground that it is an ineffective and non-cost-effective use of resources? I shall be interested to see whether the Minister can tell us now that the institute will be free to criticise Government policy and priorities. His decision to remain seated suggests that the institute will not be free to do that, which is a great pity. New clause 14 sought to bring the institute into the public domain. We are pleased with the Minister's

  231
  response to subsection (1), but both the Government and the Conservative Opposition failed to understand that subsection (3) was intended to ensure that the patient's voice was heard in decisions about which treatments the institute would consider, rather than in decisions about whether the Government should engage in rationing. It is unfortunate that neither party decided to consider that. I am also concerned about the Government's response to new clause 16.
  Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Harris: No. I want to finish my speech, and the hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time in which to speak.
  Effectively, the Government are saying that new clause 16 would stop them from restricting the use of drugs as treatment for certain conditions when other treatment would be equally effective, both clinically and in terms of cost. Perhaps the new clause should have been drafted in those precise terms, but I am sure that the Government would have rejected it in any event. In the Minister's example, it was clear that the decision to restrict use of an anti-epileptic drug was based on its effectiveness, and relative cost-effectiveness, in certain conditions, rather than being based—as with the restrictions on the use of Viagra—on the original cause of the condition. That is highly discriminatory. In a similar manner, the Government wriggled out of the implications of new clause 17 by claiming that cost was the same as cost-effectiveness. Of course it is right for the Minister to be able to offer guidance on the use of a drug on the basis of cost-effectiveness, but the new clause refers to cost and affordability, so the Minister's answer does not wash. On the basis of all that, we shall press the motion to a Division.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 322.

  Division No. 206]

  [8.15 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Livsey, Richard

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Brake, Tom

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Moore, Michael

  Burnett, John

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Burstow, Paul

  Öpik, Lembit

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Rendel, David

  Chidgey, David

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Cotter, Brian

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Feam, Ronnie

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Stunell, Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Hancock, Mike

  Webb, Steve

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Willis, Phil

  Harvey, Nick

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Mark Oaten and Sir Robert Smith.

  Keetch, Paul

  Kirkwood, Archy

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Ainger, Nick

  Ashton, Joe

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Alexander, Douglas

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Barnes, Harry

  232

  Barron, Kevin

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Battle, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Beard, Nigel

  Doran, Frank

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dowd, Jim

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Drew, David

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Edwards, Huw

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Efford, Clive

  Berry, Roger

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Best, Harold

  Ennis, Jeff

  Betts, Clive

  Fisher, Mark

  Blackman, Liz

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  Blizzard, Bob

  Flint, Caroline

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Follett, Barbara

  Borrow, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foulkes, George

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Galloway, George

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gapes, Mike

  Browne, Desmond

  Gardiner, Barry

  Buck, Ms Karen

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burden, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burgon, Colin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Giffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cann, Jamie

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gunnell, John

  Chaytor, David

  Hain, Peter

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clelland, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heppell, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cohen, Harry

  Hill, Keith

  Coleman, Iain

  Hinchliffe, David

  Colman, Tony

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Corbett, Robin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hope, Phil

  Cousins, Jim

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cranston, Ross

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cummings, John

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Darvill, Keith

  Hurst, Alan

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hutton, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jenkins, Brian

  Denham, John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dobbin, Jim

  233

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selty Oak)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Radice, Giles

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rammell, Bill

  Khabra, Piara S

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kidney, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rooney, Terry

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Laxton, Bob

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lepper, David

  Roy, Frank

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ruane, Chris

  Levitt, Tom

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Linton, Martin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sawford, Phil

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lock, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheerman, Barry

  McCabe, Steve

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Macdonald, Calum

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McFall, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McNulty, Tony

  Snape, Peter

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Soley, Clive

  Mallaber, Judy

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Stevenson, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Maxton, John

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Merron, Gillian

  Stott, Roger

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Miller, Andrew

  Stringer, Graham

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Timms, Stephen

  Mountford, Kali

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mudie, George

  Touhig, Don

  Mullin, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Truswell, Paul

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Norris, Dan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Olner, Bill

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Neill, Martin

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pearson, Ian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pendry, Tom

  Watts, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  White, Brian

  Pike, Peter L

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Plaskitt, James

  Wicks, Malcolm

  234

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Wills, Michael

  Wyatt, Derek

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tellers for the Noes: Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. Graham Allen.

  Wise, Audrey

  Wood, Mike

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 7

  INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION WITHIN THE NHS
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint an independent review to assess the extent of, and make recommendations to end, discrimination by the NHS on the grounds of age, disability, race, sex and sexual orientation in its capacity as—

  (a) an employer, and;

  (b) a provider of health services.

  (2) In subsection (1) "independent" means having a majority of members not employed by the NHS or under the control of the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 78, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
  '(1A) Appropriate arrangements shall be made with a view to securing that a Primary Care Trust's functions are exercised with due regard to the principle that there should be no discrimination on the basis of age, race, sex and sexual orientation, except where clinically justifiable.'.
  No. 83, in clause 18, page 23, line 23, at end insert
  'with due regard to the principle that there should be no discrimination on the basis of age, race, sex and sexual orientation, except where clinically justified.'.
  No. 80, in page 23, line 23, at end insert—
  '(1A) The reference in subsection (1) to monitoring includes the monitoring by ethnic origin of individuals receiving health care.'.
  No. 172, in clause 20, page 24, line 6, at end insert—
  '(c) the function of assessing equality of access to treatment within the NHS of persons of different race, gender and age, of reporting on any such inequalities which it considers inappropriate and of making recommendations for their elimination.'.
  No. 81, in page 24, line 18, at end insert—
  '(1A) Appropriate arrangements shall be made with a view to securing that the functions of the Commission for Health Improvement are exercised with due regard to the principle that there should be equal opportunity for all people.'.
  No. 79, in schedule 1, page 78, line 22, after 'effectiveness', insert 'and equal opportunities'.
  No. 82, in schedule 2, page 84, line 5, after 'year', insert
  ', and such a report shall include an assessment of performance in relation to equality of opportunity'.
  Mr. Hughes: Just so you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and colleagues know, our plan is that, because we are now subject to the guillotine, we
  have literally just over an

  235
  hour, and there are 22 groups of amendments that we would have liked to have got through. The first seven are led by new clauses that have been tabled by my hon. Friends and me. We hope to take a few minutes at most on any of the amendments, allowing time for a ministerial reply and for participation by our Conservative colleagues. We will divide on the important ones if ministerial replies are not adequate.
  The issue is to do with discrimination in the health service. The straightforward proposition in new clause 7 is that there should be a review to examine and to make recommendations about ending such discrimination. All sorts of discrimination exist. Age discrimination is a recurrent issue and, until recently, people have been turned down for treatment because of their old age. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) has persistently raised that issue in the House. Disability, race, sex and sexual orientation discrimination impact in two respects—on treatment and on staffing.
  We have health inequality in Britain. It is often the people at the lowest end of the income scale—the poorest people in our society—who include those from minority ethnic communities, who do not receive as good health treatment as others. In relation to staff, persistent problems relate to the fact that some people—again, often from minority communities—find they do not get the same opportunities for promotion or for advancement in the health service as others.
  At the top end of the staffing complement, the problem of discrimination relates to consultants. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that people who are black or Asian—often it is black people—have difficulty in getting senior posts. At the bottom end, that discrimination affects other posts.
  The new clause and amendments simply follow up the debate in the Lords, which was led by my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones, and the debate in the Standing Committee in the House, which was led by my hon. Friends. On both occasions the Government supported the principle behind our argument, but said, "Hang on. We need to look into things." We have tried to be constructive in response to that because we accept that there may be a need for information. The new clause simply says that if the Government are not willing to include a non-discrimination clause, they should at least set up an independent review. We need that because it is not provided in current NHS legislation or legislation dating back to the 1940s. There is regular Government resistance to placing non-discrimination provisions in legislation. It happened on the Greater London Authority Bill and it has happened again now.
  The insertion of our new clause would bite on clause 2, which is about discrimination in primary care trusts. We believe that the primary care trusts now being set up should exercise their function with an explicit duty of non-discrimination. They will be a formal part of the health service and that duty should be written into their constitution. Amendment No. 79 to schedule I would have the primary care trusts report on their non-discrimination policy. Amendment No. 80 to clause 18 would provide a duty on the health service to monitor quality by ethnic origin. It is important to ensure that all ethnic groups receive equally good health care.
  236
  Amendment No. 83, also to clause 18, seeks to ensure non-discrimination in the exercise of the duty of quality. Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 relate to the Commission for Health Improvement—CHIMP—which is a body being set up by the Government and which we welcome in general terms. A mechanism for health improvement should function according to the principle of nondiscrimination and there should be a report back on that.
  8.30 pm
  It is an issue of concern to the Commission for Racial Equality and bodies such as Age Concern. We hope that the Government will see our new clause 7 as a compromise. It says that we should have an independent review so that we can all have the facts and that it should be conducted in the context of the Bill. If the Government are not willing to do that and leave us with the promise of some inquiry at some time, with no certain date to report back and no absolute commitment in the Bill, we shall seek to press new clause 7 to a Division.
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has referred to problems of discrimination in the national health service in terms of employment and treatment. I intend to address the issue of discrimination in treatment because I believe that there is adequate legislation in place and adequate institutions in this country to deal with discrimination in employment. That does not mean that I am complacent about the effectiveness of those institutions in relation to the national health service, but my hon. Friends and I do not feel that the issue is necessarily appropriate for primary legislation. The Minister has an arsenal of weaponry at his disposal and the Secretary of State has already made it clear that he considers this to be an important issue and we support him in that.
  As I understand its wording, new clause 7 offers a one-off approach to discrimination. It requires an independent review and a single report of its recommendations. It is a rather indiscriminate approach to the problem of discrimination. Unlike amendments Nos. 78 and 83, also tabled by the Liberal Democrats, there is no concept in new clause 7 of distinguishing between discrimination which is clinically justified and pejorative discrimination which is not and cannot be justified.
  The Conservative party's approach to the problem of discrimination in treatment is enshrined in amendment No. 178. Rather than tabling a new clause, for tactical reasons we have sought to address the problem by amending the Bill. That seems a better way of dealing with an issue if it is possible to do so. Our amendment would make it one of the functions of CHIMP to assess equality of access. It would place a duty on it to make recommendations. That would be a permanent duty—a continuing process. Amendment No. 172 clearly acknowledges the distinction between appropriate and inappropriate discrimination.
  Equality of access to treatment, at least in theory, is or was—until the Secretary of State's recent decision on Viagra—one of the fundamental principles of our national health service. I said last night in the debate that I believe strongly that the Government have crossed the Rubicon with the proposed rationing arrangements—or limitation on availability, as the Minister would prefer to call it—for Viagra.

  237
  As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, the issue was debated in another place, and Baroness Hayman said that she would give further consideration to the amendments tabled in the other place. She also said that the Government would investigate the best way of taking "the points forward". Although I accept that the Government may determine that the best way of taking those points forward is not in primary legislation, as far as I am aware we have not yet heard anything from them about the outcome of their deliberations after that commitment was made by Baroness Hayman. Perhaps the Minister will tell us the current state of the Government's thinking on the matter.
  It seems to us that discrimination in itself presents a problem for the Government, because of the inevitable link to the problem of rationing—the taboo word. Clearly, there should be no discrimination on the grounds of a patient's race, for example, when there is no clinically justifiable reason for such discrimination. It is equally obvious that there will be occasions when it would be absurd not to discriminate on grounds of gender or race in seeking to design appropriate screening programmes, for example, in which one should consider groups at risk and, inevitably, exercise some form of discrimination. We must be careful, therefore, not to fall into the trap of thinking of discrimination only in its pejorative sense.
  In considering the problem, and in the context of the overall limits on resources available for health care delivery, I wonder what it means to say, "There should be no discrimination on the grounds of sex unless it is clinically justifiable." The point is directly connected to the question that I asked the Minister in the previous debate on the cost-effectiveness of treatments for a single condition, the cost-effectiveness of treatments for different conditions, and on a comparison of the two. What would a direction against discrimination on grounds of sex tell us, for example, about the allocation of resources to the diagnosis of breast cancer or of prostate cancer?
  Within an overall resource constraint, enhancing a service provided to one person inevitably will involve curtailing a service provided to another. We seek, and have always sought, to ensure that that should be done by a rational process, eliminating discrimination in its pejorative sense—as irrational and unjustified discrimination—and ensuring that there is transparency in prioritisation and resource allocation.
  If the Government were to admit both the existence of and continuing need for rationing in the national health service—so that we could have a mature debate about the criteria by which resources should be allocated, and the proper discrimination that should be introduced, when appropriate, in allocating health care resources—we should be able to evaluate objectively the competing claims of different treatments and of people with different conditions for limited health care resources. We might then have a clinically credible system for prioritising access to health care.
  I tell the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and some other Liberal Democrats Members—such as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who has been very concerned about the issue of age discrimination—that I believe that it is perfectly possible that a clinically credible system for prioritising access to health care would prioritise treatment for an otherwise healthy 30-year-old above the same treatment
  238
  for an 80-year-old who was in generally poor health. In other words, I suspect that any clinically credible system would, or might, include an element of discrimination on age grounds. However, such discrimination would have to be clinically justified and justifiable, and I should like it to be done transparently and openly.
  Sir Robert Smith: I caution the hon. Gentleman against being trapped into stereotypes. Research has shown that those beyond a certain age have a statistically greater ability to survive some treatments than younger people, who have yet to be hit by a range of illnesses. People who do not survive those illnesses will not reach an older age. It is important that there is no prejudice in that clinical judgment.
  Mr. Hammond: I accept the hon. Gentleman's words of caution. The issue is not just the ability to survive a treatment. When considering the allocation of health care resources to different priorities, Ministers, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence or whoever is responsible will want to consider what benefit the patient will accrue from the treatment as well as the cost. Such a consideration may introduce legitimate and clinically justifiable discrimination on the grounds of age in certain circumstances. I raise that issue to distinguish between discrimination in the pejorative, everyday sense and discrimination that is backed by clinically justifiable reasoning.
  If the Government overcame their taboo on talking about rationing we could address the issues. We would find that part of the debate about discrimination, particularly age discrimination, merged into the debate on rationing. We would then be able to identify the discrimination in the system—I accept that there is some unjustifiable discrimination—and focus on tackling it. We could do that within the health service structure that the Minister and his colleagues have put in place by imposing a further permanent duty on CHIMP, as proposed in amendment No. 172. I acknowledge that new clause 7 is well meaning, but amendment No. 172 would be a better way to address the problem if primary legislation was considered necessary.
  Mr. Denham: Equal opportunities for those who work in the NHS and for those who need its services has been an important and recurring theme in our debates on the Bill in Committee and in another place.
  The new clause and amendments pursue that theme in the context of some of the new developments in the Bill: primary care trusts in amendments Nos. 78 and 79; the duty of quality in amendments Nos. 83 and 80; and CHIMP in the other amendments. I have explained why that piecemeal approach to legislation, bolting specific provisions about aspects of equal opportunities on to some parts of the NHS framework, is not the best way forward.
  If we are to legislate, we should address the NHS in the round. However, such an approach requires careful consideration and would need to look beyond the NHS, taking account of developments across Government and the importance of a consistent approach across the range of public services. For example, we are working closely with the Home Office on planning the way forward on race equality in the light of the recommendations of the

  239
  Macpherson report on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. On that front, the Race Relations Act 1976 would provide the route for legislative change. Such issues must be taken seriously.
  I am happy to reaffirm our commitment that there must be no place in the NHS for discrimination on grounds of age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. That is more than just a statement. We shall continue to scrutinise the NHS's performance against that commitment as an employer and in the service that it offers to patients. I shall set out in a moment the areas in which there has been activity. Looking back over the debates in another place and especially in Committee, it seems that there has been a tendency for the suggestion that we are doing nothing to go unchallenged—that would be my fault—whereas that is clearly not the case.
  8.45 pm
  The new clause proposes an independent review to consider these issues. I am not sure that such a review is the right next step; indeed, there is a real risk of putting practical action on hold while efforts are diverted to support what would inevitably be a massive and all-embracing review. Equal opportunities and work against discrimination must be embedded in our total way of working, rather than being treated as a separate and one-off activity. What matters is that our total programme for the national health service should reflect the drive to eliminate discrimination and promote equal opportunities that has been the theme of this short debate.
  Let me outline some of the steps that we are taking. On employment, our human resources framework for the national health service, known as "Working Together", sets action on equality in the workplace as a priority. By April 2000, all local employers will need to have policies and procedures in place to tackle harassment by staff and service users and they must also make progress on family-friendly policies.
  We are carefully considering our whole approach to equality following the Macpherson report. We are working with the Home Office and other Departments to ensure a systematic response across Government. Last year we commissioned and published a survey of all national health service trusts in England to examine progress in equal opportunities so that we could establish a base-line against which to measure progress and set targets to raise standards.
  Since coming to power, we have launched an NHS-wide development programme, known as "Positively Diverse", which is encouraging recruitment and development of staff from local communities. That has been underpinned by an audit covering about 76,000 staff from the organisations concerned, to provide valuable information about their experience and to help to inform local action plans.
  We have signed up the national health service to the Commission for Racial Equality's leadership challenge programme. Forthcoming guidance will cover positive approaches to the employment of disabled people. The national health service is a member of the Employers Forum on Age and two thirds of national health service trusts specifically include age in their equal opportunities policy statement. We intend to publish an equalities
  240
  framework document later this year to ensure that equality and diversity are mainstream issues for the national health service. That will be supported by equality indicators so that the activities of the national health service as an employer can be kept under constant review.
  Both the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) spoke about access to health care. Action on inequalities is a central theme. We are facing up to inequalities in health. We are the first Government to do so in a long time. We launched the Acheson inquiry on health inequalities, which we shall draw on in the public health White Paper, "Our Healthier Nation", which we shall publish shortly.
  We are committed to ensuring fair access to consistently high standards of service, in accordance with need. As part of the comprehensive spending review, we commissioned a systematic review of the research into equality of access in the national health service. That research concluded that evidence of systematic discrimination is relatively limited, but that there are some areas of health care in which access has not been equal.
  It will not surprise a well-informed gathering this evening that those areas include primary care services in the inner city; mental health services, in which there is evidence of particular problems for black and Asian people with mental health needs; and coronary revascularisation, in which people were less likely to be referred for treatment if they were poorer, older, female, or black or Asian. That work is further evidence of our commitment to understanding the problem and taking action.
  Tackling such inequalities is a key issue for the new health action zones, for health improvement programmes and for primary care groups and, in future, trusts, as they begin to look in depth at the needs of their populations and better align their resources with those needs. The first national service frameworks will set national standards for coronary heart disease and mental health and will enable a rigorous approach to tackling inequalities. The next national service framework will cover older people and will of course need to tackle the important question of access to services.
  The Commission for Health Improvement will look carefully at the issue of access to health care, within its overall remit for monitoring and supporting the NHS's progress in improving quality of care. I would expect that to be an important theme as the commission reviews action on the national service frameworks, for example, and the development of clinical governance. One issue would be whether groups within the population are receiving the sorts of treatment that the evidence suggests they should. That is an important issue, because fair access is one of the six themes of the NHS performance assessment framework. The framework recognises
  "that the NHS's contribution must begin by offering fair access to health services in relation to people's need, irrespective of geography, socio-economic group, ethnicity, age or sex".
  That is one of the six criteria by which the NHS's performance will be assessed in future.
  Mr. Hammond: Given what the Minister has just said, would not accepting amendment No. 172, and thus including a specific duty for CHIMP, send an important and valuable signal?
  Mr. Denham: I have considered the amendment carefully, but I concluded that it was not necessary. As I

  241
  have said, several of the normal aspects of the commission's work in reviewing the development of clinical governance will require to consider issues of access. That will apply especially to its consideration of the national service frameworks. It would be within the power of the Secretary of State to request the commission to carry out a specific study of access issues, should that be necessary. However, to introduce a standing requirement would be unnecessary in the context of the way in which the commission will work.
  We are committed to implementing section 21 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in the NHS and will shortly issue to the NHS a report on that by Disability Matters, including a proposed action programme for the NHS that will be informed by the views of service users as to priorities. We shall also issue a template to help the NHS audit its premises for their accessibility for disabled people. A range of development work is also under way to assist the NHS in making fair access a reality.
  I have listed just some of the wide range of action under way. As I have explained, much has already been done to improve our information and understanding about how the NHS treats its staff and about the experience of patients. Equal opportunities is integral to our programmes of modernisation. With equality indicators and the performance assessment framework, we shall be able to track progress more systematically than in the past.
  I believe that it is right to concentrate efforts on seeing through that substantial programme of change. In response to the debates in the other place and in Committee we reconsidered the question of legislation as proposed in some of the amendments. I set out earlier why I do not believe that a piecemeal approach to the introduction of legislation is the right approach. A more fundamental approach would need to take into account more important considerations across Government.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am listening carefully to the Minister's speech. Is he willing to consider making a start by introducing legislation that would cover all NHS activity? I understand his point about the considerations across Government, but will he consider introducing legislation in the next parliamentary year to ensure that those who felt that they were being discriminated against in NHS treatment would be able to raise that under legislative provision?
  Mr. Denham: I always wish to be helpful, but I do not believe that I can make a commitment to bring forward, in the next parliamentary year, legislation such as the hon. Gentleman seeks. As the House will understand, I fear that I could get into deep trouble for making a commitment to introduce any legislation in the next parliamentary year.
  At the beginning of my remarks I was careful to set out the difficulty. Use of the Race Relations Act 1976 may be the right response to the Macpherson report, but we need to ensure consistency across Government. We must choose the right legislative approach in connection with other areas of discrimination, and to deal with the NHS specifically would contradict that.
  Although a specific review would not be the right way forward, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to keep the performance of the NHS under close
  242
  review, in the way that I have described. We shall listen carefully both to those who work in it and those who receive our services.
  Mr. Hughes: The NHS is the largest organisation in the country. I do not dispute that the Government's intentions are good, and the Minister has set out their programme of work. Whether that will guarantee sufficiently soon that complaints about unfair treatment can be taken up with some prospect of success remains to be seen. I accept that that is more important in connection with the service provided by the NHS than with the employment that it provides, as other provisions are more effective in that regard.
  Because so little time is left, and although I am seriously not happy, I hope that I will be able to speak to the Minister when this debate is out of the way. I shall also ask those of my colleagues who deal with Home Office affairs to meet the Minister's colleagues in the Home Office. I believe that a way forward exists, and that a provision governing the whole of the NHS would be better than one that covers only part of the organisation.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

  HEALTH CARE AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCHEMES
  '.—(1) It shall be the duty of every Health Authority and Health Board to prepare, and to consider at least once a year, a report on—

  (a) the benefits; and

  (b) the practicality

  of setting up and funding a health care and efficiency scheme in their area, and every report shall specify those measures that the Authority or Board consider should be taken in order to alleviate fuel poverty in their area.
  (2) In subsection (1)—
  "fuel poverty" means the inability to afford adequate warmth because of the inadequate energy efficiency of a home;
  "health care and efficiency scheme" means a scheme for enabling or assisting persons suffering from fuel poverty to heat their homes more efficiently.'.—[Sir Robert Smith.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir Robert Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause rehearses a proposal in the Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill, my private Member's Bill whose Second Reading has been begun but adjourned. Given that that Bill will run out of time, the new clause gives the Minister an opportunity to outline how he will deal with this important matter.
  The new clause would help health authorities to implement the results of the pilot schemes that have already been held and to help people who suffer health problems as a result of such factors as damp and poor insulation in their housing. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will set out the Government's approach.
  My office and the Department are trying to set up a meeting in connection with my private Member's Bill, which the Department of the Deputy Prime Minister has said it is seeking to improve. Obviously I welcome that, but it is important to hear what the Government intend

  243
  to do. Some successful schemes have been carried out, and best practice should apply across the country. I hope that the Minister will say how the Government plan to do that.
  9 pm
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) has been remarkably successful in persuading his colleagues to allow him to put forward his pet project for consideration under the Health Bill. Many hon. Members have followed with interest the progress of the hon. Gentleman's Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill. We all understand that energy efficiency and fuel poverty are important. We must ask, however, whether the Bill is the right way to deal with those problems. Is the national health service budget the correct budget with which to finance solutions?
  We all appreciate the benefits that would be derived from energy efficiency. It is ironic, therefore, that the Government claim credit from the rooftops for having reduced VAT on fuel—while anyone who wanted to stimulate energy efficiency and fuel conservation would not conventionally seek to reduce prices.
  The difficulty is that the Liberal Democrats appear to propose that we should spread further and more thinly an already overstretched NHS budget. They are fond of telling us that they will deal with the financial consequences of their proposals by adding an extra penny to income tax, but it is clear that that would not even begin to pay for all the problems facing the NHS. If more and more responsibilities are to be included in the NHS remit, it will become even less likely that any Government can conceivably make available a budget capable of dealing with all those responsibilities.
  There may well be a link between poorly heated homes and demands for health care. I do not deny that, and I am sure that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine could produce evidence to support that view. However, the link is relatively distant. The hon. Gentleman sought to suggest that the NHS would be making an investment that would save money by reducing demand for health care, but I do not believe that that would work.
  Sir Robert Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that for many of the pilot schemes the investment would amount to no more than the production of leaflets so that the general practitioners could ensure that patients who suffer winter illnesses that are clearly exacerbated by housing conditions could have access to resources already available to other schemes for home improvements? The proposal would mean joined-up Government, linking Departments that provide solutions with Departments that would benefit from them.
  Mr. Hammond: If I had thought that the new clause would finance only the production of a few leaflets, I would have felt little need to debate it. I thought that the hon. Gentleman wanted rather more substantial intervention.
  I do not deny that there is a link between poorly heated, energy inefficient homes and demand for health care. However, the NHS is not equipped to invest in order to
  244
  secure reductions in demand, particularly in cases in which no straightforward causal connection is immediately clear. If the NHS had resources for such investment, many direct preventive treatments exist in which it is currently unable to invest. That would bring a quicker and more direct payback to the NHS.
  I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman has focused on energy efficiency. Why not focus on diet, suggesting that health authorities should be responsible for subsidising good eating habits? Why not focus on life style, or even on driving technique? It may be possible to make a case that improved driving technique would reduce the health care consequences of road traffic accidents. The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) appears to find that extraordinary. He may be right to think that it is stretching the point somewhat.
  The NHS budget is faced with so many other demands, with so many patients who cannot get the treatment that they need or want, and with ever growing real waiting lists. People in the real world outside this place would simply not understand our motivation if we spread the limited budget still further and made the NHS responsible for doing things that are no doubt worthy and should be done but are not its proper responsibility.
  The NHS must focus its effort. It is struggling to do its job—even the Minister would not deny that. It is an uphill struggle to meet the rising tide of expectation for health care. The Liberal Democrats appear to want to divert resources that are already inadequate to meet the demand to what should be another remit altogether.
  The Government's position is interesting. Various Ministers and Labour Members have made their position on the Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill clear. The Under-Secretary of State for Health said that he supports the aims expressed in the early-day motion, which more than 100 Labour Back Benchers have signed. He did not sign it, of course, but he wrote to constituents expressing his support.
  Sir Robert Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Conservative Members also supported that Bill?
  Mr. Hammond: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right, but he should be cautious. He will recall that in Committee he accused my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who was then shadow Minister of State for Health, of having offered the Opposition's support for the Bill during its passage. Having checked the record, the hon. Gentleman was forced to withdraw that remark.
  The Minister for Public Health also apparently supported the moves that the hon. Gentleman introduced in his Bill, in a speech to her constituents, so I will be interested to find out the Government's position, not on the wisdom of introducing energy efficiency measures or even the link between energy efficiency in homes and demand for health care, but on the crucial issue raised by the new clause: should responsibility for insulating people's homes—ensuring that they have energy efficient homes—be taken on by the Department of Health and bodies within the NHS in addition to the huge burdens that they already carry? They have their work cut out; they do not need any additional burdens.
  Mr. Denham: I recognise the concern that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) expressed about fuel poverty and its impact on health. The Government take that matter seriously.

  245
  I shall explain why the action that the Government are taking nationally, coupled with the framework for local action now offered by health improvement programmes, offer the right way forward. It is important to clarify the Government's position and the suggestion that the Deputy Prime Minister supported the Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill. I am advised that, on 26 May, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who had put the original question. My right hon. Friend made it quite clear that the Government were not able to support the Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill, so it would be a little wrong to suggest that we were attempting to improve the Bill of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine.
  In relation to what the Government have done, we have, of course, reduced value added tax on fuel and on energy saving materials so that people can more easily afford to keep warm and insulate their homes. We realise that many pensioners currently face particular difficulties; that is why in the March Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an increase, from this winter, in the annual winter fuel payment to £100 for more than 7 million pensioner households. That is also why the minimum income guarantee was introduced through income support from April this year. We have released substantial additional funds to help to improve our housing stock; in total, about £5 billion is being made available over the lifetime of this Parliament for investment in housing.
  In addition, we set up a review across Government of policy on fuel poverty, which included discussions with more than 60 organisations that are expert in that field. Last month, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), published our proposals for action in the document "Fuel Poverty: The New Home Energy Efficiency Scheme". The Government have invited views on those proposals and we aim to have the new programme in place by April 2000. With the additional £150 million made available following the comprehensive spending review last year, the new home energy efficiency scheme will have a total budget of nearly £300 million for the first two years. An important body of national action is already well under way.
  In relation to the scope for local action, clauses 26 to 32 of the Bill establish a framework for equally wide-ranging action on inequalities at local level. In particular, clause 28 requires a health improvement programme to be prepared in every area. Clauses 29 to 31 introduce new flexibility as to funding and operational arrangements at the boundary between the NHS and local authorities, where that will help to promote the health of local communities.
  Health improvement programmes bring together all parts of the NHS, local government, local communities and their representatives, local employers, businesses, schools, and so on, to develop and implement plans to improve local health and health care. The programmes are not merely about improving services; they will also involve broadly based action to tackle the wider determinants of ill health. Although a contributor—possibly a substantial one—to health improvement programmes will be the NHS itself, not all the actions identified for a health improvement programme will be
  246
  funded or developed by the NHS. Other partners, especially local authorities, will play an important role—as will voluntary bodies.
  I resist the idea suggested by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) that we should try to maintain some sort of Berlin wall between the part of the health service that treats ill people and the action taken by the NHS and other partners to try to tackle the causes of ill health. Of course it is important to use money efficiently and effectively; however, I do not accept the absolute separation that the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest. He will know from our debates in Committee that we believe that the health improvement programme and the new flexibility between the health service and local authorities introduced by the Bill are extremely important. They will enable new forms of joint action. There will be increased scope for funding transfers between the NHS and local authorities—not only across the boundaries between the NHS and social services, but on a wider front in matters such as housing, where that will best advance local health and well-being. There will be new ways of working together—through pooling budgets, for example.
  Mr. Hammond: I have listened to the Minister's remarks. Does he not think, however, that there will be great difficulty in explaining to the public why waiting lists are getting longer, why more treatments are ceasing to be available, and why the NHS is not allowed to prescribe drugs, if he is seen to be diverting resources from the provision of treatment for people who need it to long-term solutions that are one step removed from the immediate health care agenda?
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Denham: That very much depends on the type of intervention and the use of money involved. Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example—one of which, I confess, I became aware only when preparing for the debate—so the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine can think that he has achieved something. From my knowledge of the case, it appears to be a reasonable use of resources by a health authority, although it will obviously have to be compared with others.
  The scheme was run by the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority and involved a grant of £300,000 being made to councils to fund central heating and insulation improvements in homes occupied by families with children who suffer from asthma. The health authority took the view that the poor health of the children selected was directly connected to the cold, damp houses in which they lived. The improved homes housed 108 children suffering from asthma. Provisional results for 71 children show that, before the improvement, 68 children slept in an unheated bedroom and 43 in a damp or mouldy bedroom; those numbers fell to three and 15 respectively. Significantly, there was an improvement in the respiratory symptoms suffered by the children with asthma and a significant reduction in the number of school days they lost because of asthma.
  I have not studied the scheme or assessed it for myself, but I should not like to rule out intervention of a sort that not only brought noticeable benefits to the children in health terms, but that, by reducing the number of school days lost due to asthma, helped to tackle some of the

  247
  consequences of ill health. In our programmes to tackle social exclusion, the Government try to join up such factors. If children cannot go to school because they are too ill, they are less likely to get a good job; they are more likely to be ill because of unemployment and so more likely to add to the costs of the health service.
  Everyone involved will have to consider how to use funds prudently. Health improvement programmes involve health authorities and local authorities, which have their own capital resources and which benefit from the release of capital receipts. I hope that that framework will enable the creation of partnerships that identify which organisation is best able to invest, because it seems to me that interventions of the sort I have described can bring significant benefits. A scheme in Birmingham focused on improving the heating and insulation of homes to reduce occupants' risk of ill health and hypothermia. The scheme was targeted on people who were recipients of benefit and who were at risk of hospital admission; they were referred by their GPs, who advised directly on the likely health gains.
  The new flexibilities the Bill will allow will make it easier to support staff working at the interface between health and housing, and help health authorities and local authorities to respond to the needs of local people in the round. They will enable the NHS and local authorities to think more inventively, to develop innovative solutions to long-standing problems and to use local resources in new and imaginative ways. Local action on the wider determinants of ill health might cover a wide range of issues, including fuel poverty; housing and the environment; action such as the sure start initiative, which brings health, social services and education together to give young people a better start in life; and access to good and affordable food.
  My reason for directing the hon. Gentleman's attention to health improvement programmes rather than accepting the specific measures that he proposes is that an important principle of the health improvement programme approach is that it should combine concerted action on national priorities with a focus on the most pressing local concerns. The scale and impact of fuel poverty is likely to vary from area to area: an area with a large elderly population and poor housing might want to give the issue very high priority; in other areas, fuel poverty might be a lower priority for the health improvement programme.
  It is right that there should be local flexibility, so I see no case for prescribing a mandatory annual review process to tackle fuel poverty alone. I point out that, if this were to become a matter of such overwhelming importance that universal action was required across the health service, clause 28 allows the Secretary of State to issue directions about the matters to be dealt with by health improvement programmes and their form and content.
  It is encouraging to see the enthusiasm with which local partners are already responding to the challenge of improving health and tackling inequalities. I have provided some relevant local examples already. I believe we are right to allow local flexibility of approach, and I do not believe the case has been made for mandatory local reports on energy efficiency matters—still less that those reports should be repeated annually. While I recognise and respect the hon. Gentleman's commitment to action
  248
  on fuel poverty, I hope hon. Members will agree that the Government have introduced the correct framework for national and local action and that new clause 8 is neither necessary nor appropriate.
  Sir Robert Smith: I thank the Minister for that response. Conservative Members should examine the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly scheme. If my briefing is correct, that scheme was established in 1995–96—so there was a time when people recognised the need to break the cycle of ill health. We must not believe that we can never step outside the health service to tackle the causes of illness. We must recognise the causes if we are to break the cycle of despair about ill health that is putting such a drain on our health service. If the Minister becomes aware of health schemes, he will monitor their conduct. He will ensure that they deliver and that the quality of the nation's health improves.
  I recognise that we are about to discuss other important issues, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

  HEALTH AND SAFETY OF NHS DOCTORS
  'In paragraph 6(2) of schedule 2 to the National Health Service and Community Care Act, 1990, after subparagraph (f), there is inserted—
  "(g) the duty to implement safe working patterns for all doctors in the training grades, including—

  (i) abiding by nationally agreed maximum average hours of duty, minimum periods of rest between duty periods and continuous periods off duty, and

  (ii) allowing sufficient time for appropriate training, formal education and study.".'—[Dr. Harris.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Dr. Harris: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 28—Regulation of doctors' working hours—
  'The Secretary of State shall, prior to 31st March in each year, make regulations which shall have effect from the following 1st January for a period of twelve months, laying down—
  (a) the maximum average number of—

  (i)working hours, and

  (ii)on call hours

  that may be worked by hospital doctors in the training grades;
  (b) the maximum average number of—

  (i) working hours, and

  (ii) on-call hours

  that may be worked by hospital consultants; and
  (c) a definition of "working hours" and "on-call hours" for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) above.'.
  Amendment No. 180, in clause 18, page 23, line 23, at end insert—
  '(1A) It is the duty of each Health Authority, PCT and NHS trust to put and keep in place arrangements for ensuring the safety and health of staff and patients.
  (1B) In pursuance of the duty defined in subsection (1A) above each body shall prepare, publish and implement a plan to reduce to a safe level the hours worked by doctors in training grades and shall review the implementation of that plan annually and publish the result of that review.'.
  Dr. Harris: These important new clauses go to the heart of what the health service is about. They address the

  249
  problem of junior doctors' hours of work and adequate rest and training. We have also chosen to table an amendment that seeks to place a duty upon the health service in line with its health and safety requirements. The hours worked by junior doctors affect not only their own health and safety but that of patients who are in endangered by inexperienced, over-tired doctors. The well-being of inexperienced junior doctors is threatened by the length of time that they are asked to work and the intensity of that work, which is often undertaken at extremely unsocial hours.
  The basis of this new clause is unarguable. It is important that patients and staff are protected from bad working conditions. The Government are failing in their efforts to reduce the hours worked by junior doctors. We must look after our health service workers. An earlier group of new clauses that we have not had time to discuss pointed to huge staff shortages in certain medical specialties. That is due partly to the low morale of junior doctors who choose to forsake the NHS for other areas of medicine and to pursue areas of professional practice other than medicine—often in other countries. The evidence is clear from research collected in Oxford and elsewhere and from polls of doctors.
  Something must be done because the status quo is not adequate. By legislating in this area, the Government would stress to the health service that this issue must be a top priority. If they do not address this problem, the Government's other objectives will be unattainable. It is inadequate for the Government to respond by saying that the need to protect the NHS from a shortage of junior doctors means that it will take another nine years to implement a new deal that was agreed nearly nine years ago. One way to guarantee that there will be a shortage of junior doctors is to fail to tackle that problem.
  Many hon. Members and most people in the country would agree that 56 hours work at the coal face is far too much, yet that is what we are asking of inexperienced junior doctors.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Harris: No, I shall not. I know of the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in this matter because he went through that training too, but other hon. Members want to speak and we have only seven minutes before the debate will be guillotined.
  It is critical that we recognise that even 56 hours of work are too many and that the rest periods—which are such an important part of the new deal that now seems like an old deal—are implemented as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is pressed for time, so I shall be brief. Does he accept that health and safety considerations are a particular reason why the Government should now legislate to restrict junior doctors' hours to an acceptable maximum? The health service is increasingly afflicted by claims of negligence and inadequate performance by its professional staff. The best way immediately to reduce the number of claims would be to prevent the risk of them arising by reducing doctors' hours.
  Dr. Harris: That is absolutely right. In purely financial terms, the costs of litigation alone must mean that it is a
  250
  false economy to work junior doctors so hard for so long, let alone the costs of training doctors who leave the NHS, often because of health concerns arising from overwork.
  I should also point out that part-time trainees—who work flexibly and often because they have family commitments—work 40 hours a week, and they are paid at half-rate for many of those hours. Not only are their hours much longer than most people would consider to be part-time, but they are paid less for their work.
  It is important that the Government accept the new clause because they are faced with the results of a ballot of junior doctors who, it would appear from the polls that have been taken, are intent on taking industrial action. I became a junior doctor in 1991, and laboured under the worst excesses of the previous Government. Morale was pretty bad at times then, but I never knew of a situation such as this, in which, according to some polls, 95 per cent. of junior doctors would consider industrial action.
  That is not to say that the Government are failing in this area more than the previous Government did, but this Government raised expectations enormously, to the extent that when the then Minister first appeared before a junior doctors' conference, a few of them were naive enough to give him a welcoming ovation. A Minister would not now dare to put his foot in the door of the British Medical Association when the junior doctors committee was meeting there, for fear of endangering his safety.
  The Minister has to act quickly; otherwise he will find that junior doctors not only vote with their feet to realise their career intentions outside the NHS, but vote to take industrial action. None of us wants that to happen.
  I am conscious that time is short, but I want to make one more point. I have been a junior doctor within recent memory, and I know that there is nothing more fearful and stressful for a junior doctor than being tired and inexperienced and faced with the responsibility of looking after scores of patients at night. The Minister must not regard lightly the effect on junior doctors of years and years of such stress. They thought at first that salvation was at hand, but now find that not only have the Government done nothing to tackle the problem, but they have gone behind their backs to the Council of Ministers in Europe, seeking to increase their maximum working hours.
  The Government's record on this matter is one of failure to implement the existing deal, of neglect of junior doctors' health and that of the patients whom they look after, and of letting down junior doctors by negotiating in Europe, behind their backs, longer working hours and a longer period in which to reduce those hours. On that basis, I urge the House to support the new clause.
  Mr. Denham: I have just a couple of minutes to make it clear that we are firmly committed to improving junior doctors' working and living conditions under the new deal. In reaffirming that commitment, we have promised to fund the regional task force for as long as it is needed.
  It is wrong for the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) to say that we have failed. We introduced tough new standards last December to safeguard the quality of rest that juniors get. As expected, that has had a significant effect on the level of compliance with the revised new deal target. I shall say more about that in a moment.

  251
  We have issued guidance whereby the postgraduate deans will approve posts as suitable for doctors in training only if trusts are working with task forces to ensure compliance with national controls and if they are providing acceptable living conditions. We are also committed to improvements in catering and accommodation for junior doctors. We are working closely with the medical profession and NHS managers to promote higher standards in those areas.
  Mr. Hammond rose—
  Mr. Denham: The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon raised some important points, to which I want to respond in the short time available to me. He tabled the lead new clause, and he has the right to a reply. It is not my fault that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) did not get his act together, although he now claims to speak for junior doctors.
  I acknowledge that there are concerns among junior doctors. I met junior doctors last week—the second time that I have met them. We had constructive discussions. It was not a fearful meeting at all. There are issues that we want to continue to discuss with them, and one of those is continuing progress on the new deal.
  The tougher standards for rest breaks that we introduced last December with the agreement of junior doctors do not mean that any doctors are necessarily working any longer. They mean that the quality of the rest period is higher. The way in which compliance is assessed has been agreed by all the signatories to the new deal, including the junior doctors committee.
  We accept that there remain—
  It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Allocation of Time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 337.

  Division No. 207]

  [9.32 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Amess, David

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Chidgey, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clappison, James

  Baker, Norman

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Bercow, John

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Collins, Tim

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Boswell, Tim

  Cotter, Brian

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Brady, Graham

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Brake, Tom

  Day, Stephen

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Nigel

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Faber, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fallon, Michael

  Burnett, John

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Burstow, Paul

  Flight, Howard

  Butterfill, John

  Forsythe, Clifford

  252

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Page, Richard

  Fraser, Christopher

  Paice, James

  Garnier, Edward

  Paterson, Owen

  Gibb, Nick

  Pickles, Eric

  Gill, Christopher

  Prior, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Randall, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Rendel, David

  Gray, James

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Green, Damian

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Greenway, John

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hammond, Philip

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Hancock, Mike

  Sanders, Adrian

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Harvey, Nick

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shepherd, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Soames, Nicholas

  Horam, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Spring, Richard

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Steen, Anthony

  Keetch, Paul

  Streeter, Gary

  Key, Robert

  Stunell, Andrew

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Swayne, Desmond

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Syms, Robert

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Leigh, Edward

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Letwin, Oliver

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Trend, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Livsey, Richard

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Viggers, Peter

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Walter, Robert

  Loughton, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Webb, Steve

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Wells, Bowen

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Welsh, Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Whittingdale, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Madel, Sir David

  Willis, Phil

  Malins, Humfrey

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Maples, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Yeo, Tim

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Tellers for the Ayes: Sir Robert Smith and Mr. Michael Moore.

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Oaten, Mark

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Ainger, Nick

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Berry, Roger

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Best, Harold

  Ashton, Joe

  Betts, Clive

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Blackman, Liz

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Barnes, Harry

  Blizzard, Bob

  Barron, Kevin

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Battle, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Bayley, Hugh

  Borrow, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Bradshaw, Ben

  253

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foulkes, George

  Browne, Desmond

  Galloway, George

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gapes, Mike

  Burden, Richard

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burgon, Colin

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gilroy, Mrs Unda

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Golding, Mrs Lin

  Cann, Jamie

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chaytor, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clapham, Michael

  Gunnell, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hain, Peter

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clelland, David

  Healey, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cohen, Harry

  Heppell, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Hesford, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Connarty, Michael

  Hill, Keith

  Corbett, Robin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hoey, Kate

  Cousins, Jim

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Crausby, David

  Hope, Phil

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hurst, Alan

  Davidson, Ian

  Hutton, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Denham, John

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dismore, Andrew

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Edwards, Huw

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Efford, Clive

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Fisher, Mark

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Kidney, David

  Flint, Caroline

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Follett, Barbara

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  254

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rammell, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Laxton, Bob

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Lepper, David

  Leslie, Christopher

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Levitt, Tom

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rooney, Terry

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Linton, Martin

  Rowlands, Ted

  Livingstone, Ken

  Roy, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ruane, Chris

  Lock, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McCabe, Steve

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonnell, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McFall, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McIsaac, Shona

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Maxton, John

  Snape, Peter

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Soley, Clive

  Meale, Alan

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Merron, Gillian

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stott, Roger

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Morley, Elliot

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stringer, Graham

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mountford, Kali

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Timms, Stephen

  Norris, Dan

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Touhig, Don

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Trickett, Jon

  Olner, Bill

  Truswell, Paul

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Pearson, Ian

  Twigg, Derek (Halfon)

  Pendry, Tom

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Vaz, Keith

  Pike, Peter L

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Plaskitt, James

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pond, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pope, Greg

  Watts, David

  Pound, Stephen

  White, Brian

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Wills, Michael

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Winnick, David

  Radice, Giles

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  255

  Wise, Audrey

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wood, Mike

  Woolas, Phil

  Tellers for the Noes: Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. Graham Allen.

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 5

  PRIMARY CARE TRUSTS: PROVISION OF SERVICES ETC.
  Amendments made: No. 7, in page 8, line 32, after 'services' insert '(including accommodation)'.
  No. 8, in page 8, line 44, after 'accommodation' insert 'or services'.
  No. 9, in page 8, line 47, at end insert 'or services'.
  No. 10, in page 9, line 4, after 'accommodation' insert 'or services'.
  No. 11, in page 9, leave out line 17.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 9
  INDEMNITY COVER FOR PART II SERVICES
  Amendment made: No. 12, in page 13, line 23, after 'below', insert 'and".'.—[Mr. Denham.]
Clause 10

  REMUNERATION FOR PART II SERVICES
  Amendments made: No. 13, in page 15, line 5, leave out from 'he' to end of line 10 and insert—

  '(a) shall consult a body appearing to him to be representative of persons to whose remuneration the determination would relate, and

  (b) may consult such other persons as he considers appropriate.'.

  No. 14, in page 15, line 18, leave out 'revised' and insert 'varied'.
  No. 15, in page 16, line 39, leave out 'revocation or revision' and insert 'or revocation'.
  No. 16, in page 17, line 5, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 11

  LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEES
  Amendments made: No. 94, in page 17, line 15, leave out from 'area;' to 'the' in line 16 and insert—
  '(b) those medical practitioners and the deputy medical practitioners for that area; or
  (c) the medical practitioners mentioned in—

  (i) paragraph (a) above; or

  (ii) paragraph (b) above,.

  and'
  No. 95, in page 17, line 23, leave out from 'area;' to 'the' in line 24 and insert—
  '(b) those dental practitioners and the deputy dental practitioners for that area; or
  (c) the dental practitioners mentioned in—

  (i) paragraph (a) above; or

  (ii) paragraph (b) above,

  and'.
  No. 96, in page 17, line 31 leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 18 and insert—
  '"(3) For the purposes of this section and section 45 below, a person who meets the condition in subsection (4) below—

  (a) is deputy medical practitioner for the area of a Health Authority if he is a medical practitioner who assists a medical practitioner providing general medical services in that area in the provision of those services but is not himself in a list;

  (b) is a section 28C medical practitioner for the area of a Health Authority if he is a medical practivioner who provides or performs personal medical services in accordance with arrangements made under section 28C above by the Health Authority (whether with himself or another);

  (c) is a deputy dental practitioner for the area of a Health Authority if he is a dental practitioner who assists a dental practitioner providing general dental services in that area in the provision of those services but is not himself on a list;

  (d) is a section 28C dental practitioner for the area of a Health Authority if he is a dental practitioner who provides or performs personal dental services in accordance with arrangements made under section 28C above by the Health Authority (whether with himself or another).

  (4) The condition referred to in subsection (3) above is that the person concerned has notified the Health Authority that he wishes to be represented under this section by the appropriate committee for their area (and has not notified them that he wishes to cease to be so represented).
  (5) For the purposes of subsection (3) above—

  (a) a person is to be treated as assisting a medical practitioner or dental practitioner in the provision of services if he is employed by that practitioner for that purpose or if he acts as his deputy in providing those services; and

  (b) "list" has the same meaning as in section 46 below.".'.

  No. 97, in page 18, line 14, leave out '44(A1)(b) or (B1)(b)' and insert 144(A1)(c) or (B1)(c)'.
  No. 98, in page 18, line 21, leave out 'section 44(A1)(b) or (B1)(b)' and insert
  'subsection (A1)(b) or (c) or (B1)(b) or (c) of section 44'.
  No. 99, in page 18, line 23, leave out from 'attributable' to end of line 25 and insert '—

  (a) in the case of a committee recognised under subsection (A1)(b) or (c)(ii) of that section, to the deputy medical practitioners for the area;

  (b) in the case of a committee recognised under subsection (A1)(c) of that section, to the section 28C medical practitioners for the area;

  (c) in the case of a committee recognised under subsection (B1)(b) or (c)(ii) of that section, to the deputy dental practitioners for the area;

  (d) in the case of a committee recognised under subsection (B1)(c) of that section, to the section 28C dental practitioners for the area.'.

  No. 100, in page 18, line 30, at end insert 'deputy medical practitioners,'.
  No. 101, in page 18, line 31, after first 'practitioners' insert 'deputy dental practitioners'.
  No. 102, in page 18, leave out lines 33 to 36 and insert 'each such practitioner'.
  No. 103, in page 18, line 44, leave out from second 'to' to end of line 46 and insert
  'any practitioners mentioned in that subsection.".'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 12

  DIRECTIONS
  Amendments made: No. 104, in page 19, line 44, leave out '45(2) or (3)' and insert '45(1C) to (4)'.
  No. 17, in page 20, line 6, at end insert—
  'or a function referred to in section 28EE(1)(a) to (d) below'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 13

  ESTABLISHMENT ORDERS
  Amendment made: No. 18, in page 21, line 43, at end insert—
  '( ) In paragraph 16(2) of that Schedule (general powers of NHS trusts), for "which is owned and managed" there is substituted "at or from which services are provided".'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 14

  EXERCISE OF POWERS
  Amendment made: No. 19, in page 22, line 7, leave out from beginning to 'be' in line 9 and insert—
  'For section 5(9) of the 1990 Act (restrictions on exercise of certain powers) there is substituted—
  "(9) A power conferred by paragraph 14 or 15 of Part II of Schedule 2 to this Act may only".'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 19
  THE COMMISSION FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT
  Amendment made: No. 20, in page 23, line 36, leave out 'section 20' and insert 'sections 20 to 22'.—[Mr. Denham.]
Clause 20
  FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION
  Amendment made: No. 21, in page 24, line 37, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Denham.]
Clause 28
  PLANS FOR IMPROVING HEALTH ETC.
  Amendment made: No. 22, in page 32, line 12, leave out subsection (10).—[Mr. Denham.]
Clause 33

  POWERS RELATING TO VOLUNTARY SCHEMES
  Amendments made: No. 23, in page 36, line 13, leave out '(5)' and insert '(4)'.
  No. 24, in page 36, line 17, leave out
  'in the opinion of the Secretary of State'.
  No. 25, in page 36, line 21, leave out from 'may' to end of line 22 and insert
  'by a written notice given to the scheme member determine that the scheme is not to apply to him'.
  No. 26, in page 36, line 23, leave out from beginning to 'has' and insert
  'A notice under subsection (4) must give the Secretary of State's reasons for giving the notice; and the Secretary of State may not give a notice under that subsection until he'.
  No. 27, in page 36, leave out lines 25 to 27.
  No. 28, in page 36, line 30, after 'may' insert
  'after consultation with the industry body'.[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 34
  POWER TO CONTROL PRICES
  Amendment made: No. 29, in page 37, line 6, leave out from 'limit' to third 'to' in line 7.—[Mr. Denham.]
Clause 35

  STATUTORY SCHEMES
  Amendments made: No. 30, in page 37, line 29, leave out from 'scheme' to first 'to' in line 30.
  No. 31, in page 37, line 35, leave out from 'scheme' to third 'to' in line 36.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 38

  CONTROLS: SUPPLEMENTARY
  Amendments made: No. 32, in page 39, line 23, leave out subsection (2).
  No. 33, in page 39, line 31, after 'limiting' insert
  'by reference to the prices or profits which would be reasonable in all the circumstances—
  ( )'.
  No. 34, in page 39, line 31, after 'or' insert—
  '( )'.
  No. 35, in page 39, line 33, after 'supply' insert
  'for the purposes of the health service'.
  No. 36, in page 39, line 33, leave out from 'medicines' to end of line 34.
  No. 37, in page 40, leave out line 2.
  No. 38, in page 40, line 3, leave out from 'service"' to end of line 4 and insert
  'means any of the health services within the meaning of the 1977 Act, the 1978 Act or the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 39

  EVASION OF CHARGES ETC.
  Amendment made: No. 39, in page 43, line 48, at end insert—
  '(8) Subsection (4) of section 122A above applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 44
  POWER TO RECTIFY TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ETC.
  Amendment made: No. 105, in page 51, line 46, leave out & 61(2)(a)' and insert & 61(2)'.—[Mr. Denham.]
Clause 57

  REMUNERATION FOR PART II SERVICES
  Amendments made: No. 40, in page 62, leave out lines 8 to 13 and insert—

  '(a) shall consult a body appearing to him to be representative of persons to whose remuneration the determination would relate, and

  (b) may consult such other persons as he considers appropriate.'.

  No. 41, in page 62, line 21, leave out 'revised' and insert 'varied'.
  No. 42, in page 63, line 38, leave out 'revocation or revision' and insert 'or revocation'.
  No. 43, in page 64, line 5, leave out subsection (4).— [Mr. Denham.]

Clause 61

  REGULATIONS AND ORDERS
  Amendments made: No. 44, in page 72, leave out lines 30 to 34 and insert—
  '(1A) Directions under section 20 or 28 or Schedule 2, or by virtue of section 38(1)(b), are to be given by an instrument in writing.
  (1B) Any such directions may be varied or revoked by subsequent directions under, or by virtue of, the same provision.
  (2) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 126 of the 1977 Act (supplementary provisions about subordinate legislation) apply in relation to any power conferred by this Act to make Orders in Council, orders or regulations, or to give directions mentioned in subsection (1A), as they apply in relation to the powers which may be exercised as mentioned in subsection (4)(a) and (b) of that section'.
  No. 45, in page 72, line 35, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert
  'subsection (4) of that section'.
  No. 46, in page 72, line 36, after & 31' insert
  'or an Order in Council under section (English and Scottish border provisions)'.
  No. 47, in page 73, line 14, at end insert—
  '( ) No recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty to make an Order in Council under section (English and Scottish border provisions) unless a draft—

  (a) has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament, and

  (b) has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Scottish Parliament'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 63

  INTERPRETATION
  Amendment made: No. 48, in page 73, line 28, at end insert—
  '( ) "NHS trust" has the same meaning—

  (a) in Part I of this Act as in the 1977 Act,

  (b) in Part II of this Act as in the 1978 Act.'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 65

  DEVOLUTION
  Amendments made: No. 49, in page 73, line 35, at end insert
  'but this subsection does not apply to section 22.'.
  No. 50, in page 73, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 74 and insert—
  '(2) The power of a Minister of the Crown under section 66 to appoint a day for any of the following provisions to come into force in relation to Wales—

  (a) sections 1 to 8, 10 to 18 and Schedule 1,

  (b) sections 26 to 32,

  (c) section 64(1) and Schedule 4, so far as concerns the following provisions of that Schedule: paragraphs 1 to 15, 22 to 25, 26(a), 27 to 34, 36, 37 (except sub-paragraph (2)(b) and (d)), 38, 39, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74(b), 75 to 78, 79 (except sub-paragraph (2)(b)), 81, 82, 83 (except sub-paragraph (2)(a)) and 85 to 88,

  is exercisable instead by the National Assembly for Wales.
  (3) In Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 (bodies and offices covered by section 74), after paragraph 12 there is inserted—
  "12A. The Commission for Health Improvement".
  (4) The National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 is amended as follows; and those amendments are to have effect as if made by an Order in Council under section 22 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (transfer of Ministerial functions).
  (5) In Schedule 1—
  (a) in the entry for the 1977 Act, after paragraph (c) there is inserted—
  "(cc) section 43C;
  (ccc) sections 46 to 49E",
  (b) at the end of the entry for the 1990 Act, there is inserted—
  "The references above to paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 are references to that paragraph before the amendments made by section 17 of the Health Act 1999.
  The Treasury consent requirement under paragraph 8 of that Schedule (inserted by Schedule 4 to the Health Act 1999), so far as relating to the matters referred to in paragraph (b) of that paragraph, shall continue in effect",
  (c) after the entry for the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 there is inserted—
  "In the Health Act 1999—

  (a) Part I and Schedule 4, except sections 20(1), 22 and 33 to 38 and Schedule 2 (other than paragraph 2);

  (b) section 62, so far as it relates to any of the provisions which, by virtue of section 65(2), may be brought into force by the Assembly".

  (6) In Schedule 2, after the entry for the Audit Commission Act 1998, there is inserted—
  "Health Act 1999
  The functions of the Secretary of State under section 20(1) shall be exercisable only with the agreement of the Assembly.
  The functions of the Secretary of State under paragraphs 4 to 7 of Schedule 2 shall be exercisable only after consultation with the Assembly".'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 66

  COMMENCEMENT
  Amendment made: No. 51, in page 74, line 27, at end insert—
  '( ) Subsection (1) does not apply to section 65, of which—

  (a) subsections (1) and (3) to (6) come into force on the day on which this Act is passed,

  (b) subsection (2) comes into force on 1st July 1999 or, if later, the day on which this Act is passed.'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 67

  EXTENT
  Amendment made: No. 52, in page 74, line 37, at end insert—
  '( ) The Secretary of State may by order provide that so much of this Act as extends to England and Wales is to apply to the Isles of Scilly with such modifications (if any) as are specified in the order; but otherwise this Act does not extend there'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Schedule 1

  PRIMARY CARE TRUSTS
  Amendments made: No. 53, in page 75, line 34, leave out 'any such' and insert 'the'.
  No. 54, in page 75, line 35, leave out 'Primary Care Trust' and insert 'authority'—[Mr. Denham.]

Schedule 2
  THE COMMISSION FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT
  Amendment made: No. 55, in page 84, line 39, leave out paragraph 20.—[Mr. Denham.]
Schedule 4

  AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 56, in page 87, line 31, at end insert—
  'National Health Service Act 1966 (c. 8)
  . Section 10 of the National Health Service Act 1966 (modification of prohibition of full-time salaried practitioner service) is omitted (and, accordingly, section 29(4) of the 1977 Act and section 19(3) of the 1978 Act continue to have effect)'.
  No. 57, in page 93, line 17, after 'arrangements)' insert '—
  ( ) in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) there is inserted—"(ba) Primary Care Trusts,",
  ( )".
  No. 58, in page 93, line 36, leave out from '(4),' to end of line 37 and insert
  'for "incidental or supplemental" there is substituted "supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitory, transitional or saving"
  No. 59, in page 93, leave out line 38 and insert—
  '.—(1) Section 128 (interpretation) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)-'.
  No. 60, in page 94, line 1, at end insert—
  '(3) After that subsection there is inserted—
  "(1A) So far as is necessary or expedient in consequence of a direction under section 16D or 17A above providing for the exercise by a Health Authority, Special Health Authority or Primary Care Trust of a function exercisable by another person, any reference in any enactment, instrument or other document to that other person is to be read as a reference to the Health Authority, Special Health Authority or Primary Care Trust".'.
  No. 61, in page 97, line 36, at end insert—
  '. In section 85B(2) (bodies in respect of which schemes for meeting losses and liabilities may be made)—

  (a) the "and" after paragraph (c) is omitted,

  (b) after paragraph (d) there is inserted "and (e) Special Health Boards".'.

  No. 62, in page 97, line 45, leave out from 'directions)' to end of line 46 and insert
  'for "incidental or supplemental" there is substituted "supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitory, transitional or saving".'.
  No. 63, in page 98, line 6, at end insert
  '( ) in paragraph 16(c), the words from "which purposes shall include" to the end are omitted,'.
  No. 64, in page 98, line 43, leave out 'for'.
  No. 65, in page 98, line 43, leave out from 'special' to 'services' in line 46 and insert
  'hospital" is omitted, after "above)" there is inserted "in a hospital at which high security psychiatric services are provided" and for "other special hospital" there is substituted "other hospital at which those'.
  No. 66, in page 98, line 48, leave out from 'for' to 'which' in line 1 on page 99 and insert
  "'which is not a special hospital" there is substituted "at'.[Mr. Denham.]

Schedule 5

  REPEALS
  Amendments made: No. 67, in page 103, line 17, at end insert—

  '1966 c. 8.

  The National Health Service Act 1966.

  Section 10.'.

  No. 68, in page 103, line 17, at end insert—

  1973 c. 65.

  The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

  In section 97, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), subparagraph (iii), subsection (2A) and in subsection (2B) the definitions of "recognised fund—holding practice" and "allotted sum".'.

  No. 69, in page 104, line 20, column 3, at end insert—

  'In Schedule 15, paragraph 37. '.

  No. 70, in page 104, line 35, column 3, after '6(2),' insert
  'in paragraph 16(c) the words from "which purposes shall include" to the end,'.
  No. 71, in page 104, line 41, column 3, at end insert—

  'In Schedule 16, paragraph 22.'

  No. 72, in page 104, line 44, column 3, at end insert—

  'In section 123(1), "in a special hospital".'.

  No. 73, in page 105, line 40, column 3, after '(d)' insert '34'.
  No. 74, in page 105, line 43, at end insert—

  '1995 c. 31.

  The National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1995

  Section 1. Section 2(2). Section 3 Sections 7 and 9'.

  No. 75, in page 105, line 53, column 3, leave out second 'and'.
  No. 76, in page 105, line 54, column 3, at end insert
  '69, 71(4), 77 and 78'.—[Mr. Denham.]
  Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Hanson.]
  The House divided: Ayes 372, Noes 112.

  Division No. 208]

  [9.46 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chaytor, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Chidgey, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clapham, Michael

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Allan, Richard

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clelland, David

  Baker, Norman

  Clwyd, Ann

  Barnes, Harry

  Coaker, Vernon

  Barron, Kevin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Battle, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coleman, Iain

  Beard, Nigel

  Colman, Tony

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Corbett, Robin

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cotter, Brian

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cousins, Jim

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cranston, Ross

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Crausby, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Berry, Roger

  Cummings, John

  Best, Harold

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Betts, Clive

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blackman, Liz

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Darvill, Keith

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Boateng, Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Borrow, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brake, Tom

  Denham, John

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Browne, Desmond

  Doran, Frank

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dowd, Jim

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Drew, David

  Burden, Richard

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burgon, Colin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burnett, John

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burstow, Paul

  Edwards, Huw

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Efford, Clive

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Ennis, Jeff

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Feam, Ronnie

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Follett, Barbara

  Cann, Jamie

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  264

  Foulkes, George

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Galloway, George

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Gapes, Mike

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Gardiner, Barry

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Laxton, Bob

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Lepper, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Leslie, Christopher

  Goggins, Paul

  Levitt, Tom

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Linton, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Grocott, Bruce

  Livsey, Richard

  Gunnell, John

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Hain, Peter

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Lock, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McCabe, Steve

  Hancock, Mike

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Hanson, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Macdonald, Calum

  Harris, Dr Evan

  McDonnell, John

  Harvey, Nick

  McFall, John

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Healey, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McNulty, Tony

  Heppell, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoey, Kate

  Maxton, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Meale, Alan

  Hope, Phil

  Merron, Gillian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moore, Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Hurst, Alan

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hutton, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mudie, George

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Oaten, Mark

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Olner, Bill

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  O'Neill, Martin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Öpik, Lembit

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pearson, Ian

  Keetch, Paul

  Pendry, Tom

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pike, Peter L

  Khabra, Piara S

  Plaskitt, James

  Kidney, David

  Pond, Chris

  265

  Pope, Greg

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pound, Stephen

  Stott, Roger

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stringer, Graham

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Stunell, Andrew

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Radice, Giles

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rammell, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Timms, Stephen

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rendel, David

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Touhig, Don

  Trickett, Jon

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Truswell, Paul

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Roy, Frank

  Tyler, Paul

  Ruane, Chris

  Vaz, Keith

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sanders, Adrian

  Watts, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Webb, Steve

  Sawford, Phil

  Welsh, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  White, Brian

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wise, Audrey

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wood, Mike

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

  Woolas, Phil

  Snape, Peter

  Worthington, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wyatt, Derek

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. Graham Allen.

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bercow, John

  Amess, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Boswell, Tim

  266

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Madel, Sir David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Maples, John

  Butterfill, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Clappison, James

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Page, Richard

  Collins, Tim

  Paice, James

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Paterson, Owen

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Prior, David

  Evans, Nigel

  Randall, John

  Faber, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Fallon, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Flight, Howard

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Shepherd, Richard

  Fraser, Christopher

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Garnier, Edward

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gibb, Nick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gill, Christopher

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spring, Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gray, James

  Steen, Anthony

  Green, Damian

  Streeter, Gary

  Greenway, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Grieve, Dominic

  Syms, Robert

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Tredinnick, David

  Trend, Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Horam, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Walter, Robert

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Wells, Bowen

  Key, Robert

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Whittingdale, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Leigh, Edward

  Willetts, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lidington, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Loughton, Tim

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Tellers for the Noes: Mrs. Eleanor Laing and Mr. Stephen Day.

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Immigration and Asylum Bill
As amended in the Special Standing Committee, considered.
Immigration and Asylum Bill
  New Clause 1

    TREATMENT OF CERTAIN OVERSTAYERS
    '(1) The Secretary of State must prescribe a period ("the regularisation period") during which overstayers may apply, in the prescribed manner, for leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
    (2) The regularisation period—

    (a) is to be not less than three months; and

    (b) ends on the prescribed day.

    (3) Section 7 and paragraph 6 of Schedule 13 come into force on the day after the prescribed day.
    (4) The Secretary of State must publicise the effect of this section in the way appearing to him to be best calculated to bring it to the attention of those affected.
    (5) "Overstayer" means a person who, having only limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, remains beyond the time limited by the leave.'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    10 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 28, 29, 91, 92, 96 and 139.
    Mr. O'Brien: I said on Second Reading that we would consider any representations that we received, as well as what was said in the Special Standing Committee. The new clause is part of that process.
    Too often in debates on immigration and asylum, people have taken fixed positions and made knee-jerk reactions to proposals for change. The left too often saw every change as xenophobic and racist, while the right tried to be tough and often seemed to believe that every asylum seeker was bogus and every immigrant was unwelcome. Neither reaction has characterised our discussions on the Bill.
    In the Special Standing Committee, we discussed with refugee groups, interested parties, the Opposition and others how to develop a policy with broad-based support. The refugee groups, particularly the Refugee Council, the Refugee Legal Centre, Justice and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, responded positively to the opportunities to express their views. Lawyers also responded through the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. The Opposition came forward with some constructive proposals in Committee. I thank them for the tone in which they conducted the debate. We said that we would consider their proposals. We did not promise to accept every proposal or always to agree, but I hope that we are at the beginning of a process of sensible discussion on sensitive issues.
    Setting aside the knee-jerk reaction of the appallingly racist Dover Express and the bilious mendacity of the odd leftist journalist, the debate on the Bill has been constructive in the national press and among pressure groups and many hon. Members. The Kosovan refugee
    268
    crisis has shown everyone that many refugees are genuine. That has helped us to focus on devising a balanced package aimed at creating a system that works.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: I do not want to spoil the wonderful consensus that the Minister is trying to generate, but does he include in his comments about knee-jerk reactions the reactions of his Front-Bench colleagues when we introduced our much milder Asylum and Immigration Bill in 1996 and were accused of playing the race card and being racist? Will he repudiate that?
    Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Lady voted for a Bill that removed all support from in-country asylum seekers and those in the appeal system. That was not an acceptable or humane approach.
    Miss Widdecombe rose—
    Mr. O'Brien: I hope that the right hon. Lady will allow me to reply to her. In an attempt to encourage her not to pursue the abrasive approach for which she is renowned, I welcome her to her new Front-Bench position. I wish her a long period as Opposition home affairs spokesperson.
    Miss Widdecombe: I was rather surprised by the hon. Gentleman's answer which confused the social security measure, for which I was not responsible, with the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which introduced measures with regard to safe third countries, safe countries of origin and illegal working, all of which, to an extent, have been picked up in this Bill. Will he repudiate the opposition that his party mounted to that measure?
    Mr. O'Brien: We properly opposed the 1996 Bill, which the right hon. Lady put forward, because it was a bad Bill that created a shambles in the asylum and immigration system. The problems that we have to sort out were caused during her time at the Home Office, when she was responsible for immigration and asylum. Before she tries to preach to us, let her remember the shambles that we inherited from her and those with whom she worked at the Home Office in the previous Government.
    Let us return to the more proper and sensible discussion that we were having until the right hon. Lady intervened. Perhaps she wants to use these difficult, complex and sensitive issues as a party political football. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who ably represented the Conservative party in Committee, did not seek to do that. She ought to learn the lessons of the failure of the 1996 Act and start engaging in sensible, adult discussion about the issues.
    When we discussed what is now clause 7 in the Special Standing Committee, concern was expressed about the position of those current overstayers who have come to the attention of the authorities and are likely to be deported. At present, they have a suspensive right of appeal. They have a full right of appeal if they have been here for more than seven years, but only on a point of law if they have been here for a shorter period.
    Under clause 7, such people would be removed, with a right of appeal against the legality of the removal decision, but the appeal could be exercised only

    269
    from abroad. It is important to note that asylum seekers will retain a right of suspensive appeal. The concern is about immigration offenders—overstayers—who may have been here for many years.
    We will not condone overstaying—it is as much an evasion of our immigration controls as is illegal entry—but we have listened to representations and we are prepared to allow overstayers a limited and final opportunity to take advantage of the right to a suspensive appeal against deportation. New clause 1 achieves that. Importantly, it will allow them to remain in the United Kingdom only until their appeal is decided—a matter of months—and it will be for the adjudicator to decide whether they can remain beyond that date. Some may be able to remain; others will not and will need to be deported.
    Mr. James Clappison: To which overstayers does that apply?
    Mr. O'Brien: It applies to those who come to the attention of the immigration authorities during the period for which the regularisation procedure will apply. There will be a period during which they will be allowed to bring themselves to the attention of the immigration authorities; if they do that, we intend to allow them that right of appeal. We will consult the various organisations on the length of the period, but I anticipate that it will be about a year.
    We will expect those who want to take advantage of the suspensive appeal to bring themselves to our notice, or they may be brought to our notice because they are detained, and in those circumstances an appeal will be allowed—but after that period is over, it is anticipated that such an appeal will no longer be available to those who are merely overstayers and have no other right of appeal.
    Mr. Clappison: Is the Minister referring to all overstayers, or only those who have overstayed by more than seven years?
    Mr. O'Brien: I am referring to those who currently have a right of appeal. Those who have been here more than seven years will have a full right of appeal, as at present. Those who have been here less than seven years have a very limited right of appeal, which is basically on a point of law, and that will continue to be the case. We are not extending the appeal rights beyond what we inherited from the Conservative Government. We will maintain the existing rights for a time and say, in effect, that if people want to exercise their right to a suspensive appeal in the specified period, let them come forward then, or that will be that.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend intend to set out any guidance on how the appeals should be conducted, or will existing case law apply? Will there be any new criteria?
    Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps it will help hon. Members if I set out in some detail how we shall do that, and in doing so I shall deal with the point that my hon. Friend has raised.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: This is a tricky subject. Several people will have a copy of the Bill
    270
    as it was first debated on Second Reading. Hon. Members have the Bill as amended in Committee. Some people outside will have the old notes on clauses and some clause numbers have changed. If possible, could the Minister refer to the present clause numbers and, if his officials can provide the information, the previous clause numbers? In that way, those watching our debates would be able to understand what we are talking about.
    Mr. O'Brien: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman is seeking to add a level of complication—doubtless for the good reason of informing the public—to the proceedings, which might end up confusing more people. I shall try to be as straightforward as I can in my explanation of how the procedure will work, but I do not think much will be achieved by trying to refer to two different clause numbers each time I discuss a clause.
    New clause 1 will allow people to remain in the United Kingdom until their appeal is decided, as I have said. Overstayers who apply for their status to be regularised will not be considered under any special criteria. In each case, their particular circumstances will be taken into account under the criteria set out in the immigration rules when deciding whether or not deportation is appropriate.
    We shall ensure that the scheme is well publicised. The period for applying will be at least three months—we are considering the time limit—and clause 7 will not come into force until it is over. I believe that that was clause 6 in the old Bill. The details of how to apply will be set out in regulations.
    We appreciate that the scheme does not go as far as some would like—some people asked us to retain the right of appeal indefinitely—but we are not prepared to allow current overstayers to retain access to lengthy deportation procedures in perpetuity. That would be both undesirable and impractical.
    Amendment No. 28 is contingent on the regularisation arrangements provided for in the new clause. The former protection from removal provided by the original subsection (2) is no longer necessary. The effect of clause 3, which was introduced in Committee, and of paragraph 17 of schedule 4 is that, where someone makes an in-time application for further leave, the leave is treated as continuing while the application is being considered and while any appeal is pending under either clause 47 or clause 55(2). The person concerned is no longer an overstayer. Consequently, he is no longer liable to removal as such until the leave application is decided.
    However, anyone who applies for leave to remain under the arrangements envisaged by new clause 1 is already an overstayer. If his application has not been resolved by the time clause 7 comes into force, he would be liable to removal under the new administrative removal procedures. Amendment No. 28 makes it clear that the new removal procedure will not apply to someone in that situation. If the application is granted, the person concerned will be granted leave to remain. If it is refused, they will have the same right of appeal during that period against any decision to make a deportation order as they do at present.
    Amendment No. 29 deletes subsection (5) of clause 7. That power was originally included in case it was required. However, I can envisage no circumstances in which it might be necessary and, having regard to the concerns that were expressed by the Opposition—by

    271
    the hon. Member for Hertsmere about the number of powers in the Bill to make subordinate legislation—we have decided to forgo that one.
    Clause 149 gives details of how the various orders and regulations are to be managed. Amendment No. 91 adds a new subsection (3A) to that clause, specifying that certain regulations are to be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Those are regulations concerning the regularisation period for the current overstayers and regulations extending the clause 60 one-stop procedure. We listened to the representations made in Committee by several hon. Members about the way in which we should do that, and we accept that the affirmative procedure is appropriate for those regulations, in line with the orders specified in subsection (3) of clause 149.
    10.15 pm
    Amendment No. 92 is consequential on amendment No. 91. It simply adds a reference in the regulations that are to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure to the list of exceptions in subsection (4), which otherwise requires all secondary legislation to go through the negative procedure.
    Amendment No. 96 relates to new clause 1 and amendment No. 139. The new clause gives the Secretary of State power to make a regulation specifying when the regularisation period for overstayers ends. Subsection (3) of the new clause states that clause 7—under which overstayers are to be removed without deportation—and paragraph 6 of schedule 13 come into force on the following day. Amendment No. 96 refers back to new clause 1 in the commencement clause, listing it as a special case. For example, under clause 153(3), most parts of the Bill will come into force on the day that the Secretary of State appoints, but clause 7 will come into effect the day after the specified final day of the regularisation period.
    Amendment No. 139 is a transitional arrangement. It retains the appropriate deportation appeal provisions of the Immigration Acts of 1971 and 1988 for overstayers who have made a valid but unsuccessful application under the regularisation scheme and who are to be deported under the old provisions, rather than removed under the new ones.
    Mr. Richard Allan: Will the Minister clarify a point arising from when clause 7 comes into force? That clause applies also to those who have observed the conditions attached to their leave to remain, as well as to those who are simply overstayers. Will those in the former category retain their appeal rights during the regularisation period?
    Mr. O'Brien: Our intention is that clause 7 will come into force all at once after the regularisation period has ended. We listened to the representations of various hon. Members in Standing Committee, who felt that we had to examine the issue very carefully, and the aim is to bring in the clause at a date later than originally planned. We cannot go as far as some hon. Members wanted, but we believe that this is a sensible way forward.
    Mr. Clappison: It would be less than gracious not to respond to the Minister's opening remarks. I am grateful
    272
    that he has recognised that our opposition to the Bill has always been constructive and well meaning. I am just a little surprised, given what the Minister has said, that the Government have decided to guillotine debate and to keep the discussion of subsequent provisions as short as possible.
    The Minister claimed to have listened to outside groups and to the evidence presented to the Special Standing Committee. However, had he tried to take on board all the criticisms of the Bill in that Committee, we would be here for a very long time. Perhaps that is why the Minister's colleagues want to guillotine debate.
    New clause 1 follows on from matters that we have debated already with regard to overstayers' rights of appeal, but new clauses 2, 3 and 5 contain very controversial proposals that have not been foreshadowed in debate in any way. They were not part of the Government's original proposals for the Bill, were tabled at a very late stage and then were made subject to the guillotine procedure. That is unsatisfactory.
    New clause 1 appears to be an addition to what the Government have proposed already by way of curtailment of overstayers' rights of appeal. In Committee, we did not oppose the proposals for change in those rights of appeal, nor the proposed change of regime for overstayers from deportation to removal. That curtails the rights of appeal, especially for people who have overstayed by more than seven years.
    We take a serious view of those who overstay. People who exceed their permission to remain are flouting the law and obtaining benefits not available to those who follow the rules and who lawfully leave when they are supposed to do so. Overstaying is a serious matter, but if people have been here for a certain period, a balance must be struck in deciding what to take into account before they are expelled or deported. We must consider the need to remove them from the country against the need to take into account compassionate circumstances that may have arisen because of their presence in the UK for such a long time.
    The previous Government set that balance at seven years. When someone had overstayed by more than that, compassionate circumstances could be considered as a ground of appeal. The present Government have changed the balance. Once the regularisation period has elapsed, there will be no right of appeal on compassionate grounds for overstayers who have been here for more than seven years. They will be unable to prosecute any right of appeal in the UK, which makes a very great difference. In taking that view, the Government have gone further than the previous Government. We did not oppose that change in Committee, but the Government have since bolted on a regularisation procedure as a means of meeting concerns expressed by outside organisations that gave evidence.
    Ms Diane Abbott: It is true that the hon. Gentleman and his party did not oppose that change in Committee, but some of the Minister's Back-Bench colleagues did oppose it. Many people who overstay are settled members of the communities in which they live. They may have children at school, and the proposals will cause great misery and unhappiness.
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady's comments fairly reflect what was said in Committee. We went into

    273
    this matter—which, as the Minister said, is extremely sensitive—in some detail. It would not preserve the harmony that unexpectedly broke out at the beginning of the Minister's speech if I were gently to remind him of what the Labour party said about these matters when in opposition.
    We have a number of questions about the regularisation period. The Minister has given a brief account of how it will work, and we have before us the bald statements in new clause 1. We wish to clarify matters further. Can the Minister confirm that the criteria to be taken into account in evaluating the cases of people who have overstayed are the same as those currently used in respect of the rights of appeal under the present system, which deals with them by way of deportation? For people who have been here for fewer than seven years, will the new regime mean that their rights to appeal will be judged against the points of law and other matters currently taken into account in their cases? For those who have been here longer than seven years, will compassionate circumstances be taken into account?
    We want to know that there has been no relaxation in the current framework of law. It would be a new matter entirely if the Government intended, by way of regularisation, to relax the law in any way. We should also like to know how long the regularisation period will last. Will he tell us a little more about subsection (4), which deals with publicity on the effects of the clause?
    We are not opposing what is being done. It may concern those who originally expressed the sort of fears that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) mentioned. She may know, as will other hon. Members, that many people who fall into the category of overstayers and who stay here for a long time simply put their heads down and do not respond to anything and the compassionate circumstances build up. The regularisation period will come to an end at some stage—the Minister will probably tell us when—and when it has ended those people will face administrative removal even if they have been here for more than seven years, with the rights of appeal that that entails. They will simply be removed from the country and they will have to prosecute any rights of appeal in the country to which they are removed. That is the regime that is to be put in place.
    We look to the Minister for answers to my questions. It is interesting to set his contribution this evening against what he told us in Committee when these matters were being discussed. The hon. Gentleman tells us that he has been prepared to listen, but in Committee the Government assured us that the rationale behind and justification for the changes was a so-called streamlining of the system. Having listened to the Minister this evening, streamlining is not the appropriate description.
    We do not oppose new clause 1, but we need a number of answers to our questions.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: I shall make a brief contribution because I raised this issue in the evidence-taking sessions and later in the debate on the relevant clauses in the Standing Committee. It is an important matter.
    As originally drafted, the Bill took away all appeal rights from overstayers, including those people who now when they have been here seven years or more get a full
    274
    substantive appeal—in which all sorts of factors can be taken into consideration—but who in future will be subject to administrative removal.
    I very much welcome the fact that the Government have made some moves on this matter. In Committee, the Minister said—I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was there at the time—that when administrative removal is being considered the same factors relating to deportation that are in the immigration rules at present would be taken into consideration. That is a move in the right direction, but I still have some doubts about whether we have the balance absolutely right.
    Mr. Clappison: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there were not many occasions on which I was absent from the Committee. I remember the matter to which he adverts, but the factors to which he is referring will be taken into account by officials in the Home Office. My point related to rights of appeal before the courts.
    Mr. Gerrard: I understand that absolutely. At the moment, the immigration rules list matters that will be taken into account by an adjudicator in deciding a deportation order. In Committee, we were told that the same factors would be taken into account in an administrative removal.
    However, there is a significant difference between an administrative removal and an appeal. I am always worried when appeal rights are removed. I recall the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, to which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) referred. By the way, the right hon. Lady was wrong when she said that the benefit cuts were nothing to do with that Act. Although those cuts started off as a social security measure, the court threw out the social security regulations that the Government introduced, so they amended the 1996 Bill in its last stages. Those regulations were part of that Act and a part of her responsibility as a Home Office Minister.
    The 1996 Act removed appeal rights on visit visas, which we are quite rightly putting back in this Bill. I know, as do many other hon. Members I am sure, the consequences of that removal. Then, people who previously would have had appeals were turning up in our advice surgeries week after week saying, "The visit visa appeal for my relative has been turned down. Please can you help?" We got drawn into making representations, which ended up on Minister's desks.
    Generally, it is much better for decisions on appeal to be taken through a proper appeal process, rather than through administrative processes, into which hon. Members will inevitably be drawn.
    10.30 pm
    Another matter that concerns me is that, in future, other routes may be sought. People might make probably quite unjustified asylum claims because they saw that as the route to an appeal. Alternatively, they might use one of the other provisions in the Bill—the possibility of an appeal under the Human Rights Act 1998. That could open up the possibility of appeals on compassionate grounds—for example, on family grounds in respect of people who have been in the country for some time.
    If there is to be a grace period, it needs to be of substantial length, because it will not be easy to persuade people to come forward. They are likely to come forward

    275
    only if they think there is something in it for them—if they think that they will benefit in some way. It is not easy to see precisely what the incentive might be for people to declare themselves to be overstayers. Many people might think about it, but they may be advised to keep their heads down, in the hope that they can spin out the period during which they are in this country, so that, in the longer term, they can build up a case on compassionate grounds and make family connections through which they can argue an appeal on human rights grounds. I welcome the fact that the Government have moved to acknowledge that we should—at the very least—safeguard people who are in the country at present. That is a positive move in the right direction.
    However, I still have some doubts. It might have been better to consider a measure that did not include a grace period. For example, if we said that everyone who has been in the country for seven years on the day on which the Bill comes into force could keep their right of appeal, that might mean that appeals would be heard over a considerable period, although the number would inevitably gradually dwindle. However, if we do not take that course, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider a grace period of reasonable length in which people can be persuaded to come forward. If the period is too short, it might not serve the purpose that my hon. Friend wants it to serve.
    Mr. Allan: In speaking to the new clause, I first welcome the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) to her new position. She is one of the Members of the House who inspired me to become involved in politics and to stand at the last election. Like many other hon. Members, I was able to replace a Conservative Member, thus helping the right hon. Lady to achieve her position on the Opposition Front Bench. I am pleased that that happened.
    However, after that election in 1997, I did not expect the new Labour Government to introduce Bills which, in many ways, take us back to the position adopted by the previous Conservative Government in 1996. I did not expect to feel the same anger about measures on immigration and asylum under a Labour Government, whose Members stood on the kind of platform that they did in opposition, that I had felt in 1996. I was interested to hear the Minister say that his approach was no longer one of knee-jerk reaction. In 1988, when the Labour Opposition opposed similar measures—to take away the appeal rights of people who stayed in this country for less than seven years—I took that to be principled opposition rather than simply a knee-jerk reaction from the left. I am somewhat disappointed to hear it described in those terms.
    I am also interested to hear that the Government no longer feel that they need the support of dodgy left-wing columnists in subversive papers—such as The Observer perhaps. I do not know what the Minister was referring to, but perhaps that is the sort of extremist publication that he has in mind when he talks about dodgy subversive columnists. I am glad that he can retain the support of Labour Members without having to kowtow to those pressures from extremist positions.
    We have had constructive debates on this issue and many others in Committee. I do not want to destroy the career of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison),
    276
    but I should say that together we have been able to mount an effective opposition by asking the right questions, even though we approach the matter from different angles.
    We opposed the provisions of clause 7 in Committee and we continue to be concerned, even though we are pleased that the Minister has made some concessions. Our opposition has paid off in that he has now tabled a new clause that gives a marginal right of appeal to some people who would have had that right removed by clause 7. We are also pleased with the commitment that the Minister made in Committee to ensure that the immigration rules explicitly refer to the sort of criteria that may be used before a decision on removal is made. The Minister made it clear that, even without a deportation appeal, those compassionate circumstances would be taken into account.
    However, new clause 1 does not cover that other category of people—those who have breached their conditions. Clearly, people should not breach their conditions, but we believe that there is a difference between illegal entrants and those who have entered the country legitimately and have the legal right to be here but who have breached their conditions for one reason or another. Such breaches are not to be applauded, but the reasons for the breach may be understandable. However, clause 7 leaves such people in exactly the same position as illegal entrants, in that they will be removed and unable to exercise any right of appeal until afterwards, and new clause 1 does not change that.
    Our other questions arising from new clause 1 relate to operational details. Recently, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate has not demonstrated that it is entirely capable of dealing with large rushes of applications, so we are concerned about how it will cope with the pressure resulting from a finite grace period. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) made a good suggestion—that it would be better to have a system whereby individuals who have been here seven years or more at the time when the legislation is implemented retain a right of appeal. That group would be finite—there is no suggestion that such a system would apply to persons other than those who were already in this country when the provision was introduced—and it might help to avoid an otherwise inevitable rush of applications toward the end of the grace period.
    I hope that the Minister will think about those points. There is to be further consideration of the Bill in another place, and I am sure that their Lordships will want to consider this issue and many others. The Minister should recognise that our suggestions, if incorporated in the Bill, would enable the retention of a limited right of appeal, but without many of the administrative problems that new clause 1 would cause. I shall not continue to oppose the retention of a limited right of appeal tonight and the proposals before us give no opportunity to revisit the whole principle of clause 7. However, we shall continue to return to the issue of appeal rights for people who have either breached their immigration conditions or who have overstayed.
    Fiona Mactaggart: In a way, I hesitate to speak on the new clause, because it relates to an issue that I raised on Second Reading and have been pressing vigorously with the Minister and the Home Secretary ever since, to such an extent that the Home Secretary has taken to associating new clause 1 with my name, which I think

    277
    is deeply unfair. That is not because the new clause does not represent a concession—it does, and I welcome it—but because the nature of that concession is, to be frank, pretty paltry.
    All the new clause does is defer the time at which the rights of people who have overstayed to appeal against a decision to deport them are curtailed. Before the election, the Labour party said, in terms, that it would sustain such rights; and when he was an Opposition spokesman, my right hon. Friend the current Prime Minister made the powerful statement that:
    "It is a novel, bizarre and misguided principle of the legal system that if the exercise of legal rights is causing administrative inconvenience, the solution is to remove the right."—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 43.]
    However, we are planning to do precisely that. I am glad that, at least for some people who currently have a right that can work, there is to be a deferral before they can no longer exercise that right. The problem is that I am not confident that the new clause will work in practice. That is part of the problem with the Bill as a whole. Those of us who have been involved in immigration and asylum matters over many years are concerned about not just the Bill's principles but its administration. The recent administrative concessions that Ministers have introduced constitute the best changes made during consideration of the legislation.
    I am concerned that the new clause will lead to fishing expeditions. What rights will people retain during the registration period? They will retain the right of appeal, which, as has already been pointed out, is ineffectual in most cases. It is potentially effective only for those people who have overstayed for more than seven years, and appeal statistics reveal that only 5 per cent. of appeals in this category succeed. So that is a tiny possibility. If we are to publicise extensively the fact that people will retain their right of appeal, it might lead to a fishing expedition. People will register because they will know that they retain their right of appeal, and then discover that that right is ineffectual in their case. So they will have done the work of immigration officers, who are tasked with finding and prosecuting overstayers.
    I believe the proposal has serious defects, but that does not seem serious if we accept that overstayers are trying actively and deliberately to contravene immigration law. However, many of them are not doing that. A constituent, Mr. Singh—I do not identify him particularly by revealing his surname as it is common to many of my constituents—entered the United Kingdom in 1989 as a child of 12 when his father applied for asylum. I believe—although I have not investigated the application fully—that his father's asylum claim was not particularly well founded. Nevertheless, my constituent—who was a child at time—was part of that claim, which was refused and went to appeal. In the meantime, my constituent reached adulthood and married. His marriage application was rejected because he was an overstayer. Mr. Singh has no appeal on his substantive case, and he will never have one. That is the kind of person who might be affected by this measure.
    Some 8,000 readers of The Express have sent letters and petitions to that newspaper concerning a young man who entered the United Kingdom as a child, whose parents stopped paying his school fees and who has been an overstayer in this country for a long time. His case has caught the imagination of its readers. He is a typical example of that kind of overstayer.
    278
    In view of the position that Labour adopted when rights of appeal were curtailed under the last Government, there is a strong case for following precedent. Ten years ago, Commonwealth citizens who entered Britain before the Immigration Act 1971 came into effect and who had lived here for five years were declared immune from deportation. In 1974, after the 1971 Act came into force, the then Prime Minister said that those people who would have qualified would be treated as though they continued to qualify. If we look at the history books and the statistics, we can see that the outcome was quite predictable: a fixed number of people who had arrived before the commencement of the Act and who retained their qualification right submitted applications. As one would expect, the number of applicants fell away five years after the Act's commencement.
    In this case, the numbers would fall seven years after commencement because of the way in which the Home Office correctly exercises the rule regarding people who have been in this country for 14 years, recognising the compassionate circumstances that may exist in such cases.
    10.45 pm
    The new clause takes a small step in the direction that I requested the Government to take on Second Reading, and it is accompanied by bigger steps in other parts of the Bill, but I ask the Minister to consider whether publicising, in the short-term, a right that is not significant achieves very much. The process will not be made faster; it will not be made firmer because the new clause affects, by definition, only people who are already here, and it will not be made fairer because that would be achieved only by the introduction of a proper right of appeal against Executive decisions.
    I am glad that a small step has been taken, but I ask the Minister to consider whether a slightly larger change—made, perhaps, in the other place—might deliver the slogan about a firmer, faster and fairer immigration system on which we were elected.
    Mr. Corbyn: I shall be brief because there are many more matters to discuss and the proceedings are subject to an allocation of time motion.
    There is a strong human dimension to the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) alluded to that when he said that the new clause must contain substantial provisions for overstayers or they will simply not come forward. Those of us who have the honour of representing one of the large number of inner-urban constituencies know many people who have been overstayers for many years. They lead a twilight existence. They live in perpetual fear of getting a parking ticket, of being stopped in the street, of witnessing a crime and being brought forward as a witness and of going to any authority because they know that they will be asked for their passport, their papers will be searched for, the Home Office will be contacted and their whole life will be torn apart.
    If overstayers have a settled relationship and children, that fear is transmitted to their children, who are afraid to come forward and get involved. That simply is not right. If overstayers are looking for work, they are often subject to the worst possible exploitation. They will be exploited in sweatshops, burger bars, kebab houses and other places where people can get a job for a short time with no

    279
    questions asked. They will be paid disgraceful wages, and if they are abused by the employer, they cannot do anything about that. They cannot go to the Health and Safety Executive to complain about safety, and they cannot complain about not receiving the minimum wage or about anything else.
    We have to recognise that we will damage the fabric of our society unless we try to make sure that everybody is legally entitled to work and able to lead a normal existence.
    Although I recognise that the Minister has moved in the direction requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), it is essential that overstayers have the fullest possible rights of appeal. Case law indicates that in applications that rely, ultimately, on compassionate grounds, those grounds often reflect family relationships and structures. That is fine for people who happen to be in a relationship and to have a family, but the procedure often militates against single people who cannot claim such a network of support. That is why I have asked the Minister if any guidance will be given on that.
    I hope that the Minister will reconsider what has been said and, perhaps, use the opportunity of the Bill's passage through the Lords further to amend the Bill not only to allow full rights of appeal, but to recognise the needs of single people who do not fit into the categories of compassionate circumstances that he is probably more accustomed to dealing with.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: This has been a useful debate. Some of it may seem very technical to people outside the House. I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging that my point about trying to make our debates comprehensible to people outside is serious. New clause 1 will not be the most important part of the Bill to them because, in time, it will die as those who qualify under it have their cases and, if necessary, their appeals processed.
    Those who have a serious concern about the new clause, and who have tried to provide briefing material to the House—they will continue to provide such material to the other place in the weeks ahead—must be able to look through the marshalled new clauses and amendments, including the four-digit numbers on the pages of the amendment paper and clauses with numbers of up to three digits, and be able to work out what effect each will have. If they begin by reading the original Bill, that process will be difficult to follow. I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging that the present clause number had changed. If that happens in future, it would be helpful if we could be told.
    As the Minister acknowledged when he spoke about consultations, a range of groups has been useful to the Government and wishes the Government to go further. The Minister acknowledged in Committee that meetings with such groups could be useful. Some of those meetings made progress, as the outside groups wished. Some groups hope that further progress will be made not just today and tomorrow, as the Bill goes through its Report stage under a pretty strict timetable, but in another place. We can anticipate further changes when it comes back from the House of Lords in due course.
    I have one particular point to make to the Minister. For most of the time in Committee, he did well. Occasionally, he may have been defending the indefensible, but he
    280
    usually kept his temper. He did not do that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) intervened at the beginning of the debate. The House will want to know whether that was preplanned, or whether it was his instant reaction to any kind of challenge to his remarks. I would like to think that it was preplanned and that it was the Minister's way of getting attention. Perhaps it was his bid to get into the Cabinet, but if it is repeated, we shall have to conclude that it is his reaction to being challenged.
    We need to learn that in a democracy, challenge is normal. There may not have been much challenge to the Government on the matter in Committee, because it was only in the later stages that Labour Members began to participate more actively. They had originally listened rather quietly while arguments were advanced by the Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on his assiduity in Committee.
    The points made in Committee matter a great deal. I pay tribute to the Minister's advisers, who try to keep the existing system running and to find ways of getting the new system to work better.
    Part of the job of the Opposition is not only to argue for the changes that we believe should be made, but to allow Ministers to answer the arguments of outside groups about aspects that they believe the Government have not got right or could deal with better. I hope that all the representations that we have received over the past four or five days have been copied to Ministers. Some of those relate to the present new clause, but most refer to issues that will probably be discussed tomorrow.
    Some of the groups had to spend as much time with refugees, migrants and overstayers as do Home Office and immigration service officials. The partnership between the voluntary sector and the public sector is important. We have heard Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour Members speaking of their experience, and some hon. Members have spoken very well this evening.
    This is not a time for long speeches. Progress needs to be made. The limited rights for overstayers do matter. There is a point that is tangentially relevant to that. During the hiccups—to put it gently—of the immigration service over the past few months, some people became overstayers while their application for variation of their leave to remain was supposed to have been processed.
    I have advised a constituent that if such people are refused variation of their leave to remain, and they abide by the time limit by which they must leave the country, and if they later apply to come back on a visitors visa of some kind, the fact that they overstayed because their original application, which was made in time, could not be processed will not be held against them. I do not ask the Minister for an assurance on that tonight, but I want him to know that that is the advice that I have given. if it was not people's fault that their application was not processed in time, that should not be held against them if they want to return to this country under normal arrangements.
    Ms Abbott: I begin by thanking the Minister for listening to what was said in Committee and outside and making some move to meet our concerns through the new clause. However, in his opening remarks the Minister characterised people's response to immigration legislation as either knee-jerk leftism or knee-jerk rightism. I suggest

    281
    that one of the things that characterises people's response to immigration legislation is their personal and constituency experience.
    I have never had much taste for the tone in which Ministers talk about economic migrants because my parents were economic migrants, although they were within the law. I come from a part of the world where, for at least three or four generations, people have used economic migration as a pressure valve to relieve poverty and deprivation, so I cannot buy into the tone that is sometimes adopted to people who travel thousands of miles to better their lives and those of their families, although one does not condone people doing that outside the law.
    My constituency experience shapes my response to the new clause. For some of my colleagues, refugees and asylum seekers are transient figures who come through their constituencies for a few months and then are gone, but I represent a part of London where nearly everybody comes from somewhere else, be it Ireland, eastern Europe, Jamaica, Nigeria, Somalia or Iraq.
    Outwardly, many people in my part of the world are pillars of the community, but technically they are overstayers. Many are wilful overstayers, but many others did not set out to subvert the Minister's legal system. They came here as children, as partners of men who became abusive and abandoned them, as students or as visitors. One cannot do as much immigration case work as I do and have any illusions about the saintliness of most people who come forward at surgeries, but the thread that is common to many of them is that they did not start out seeking to subvert the system. I would pray that in aid for them.
    There is another common thread, certainly in many of the cases that I deal with. When Ministers talk about overstayers and economic migrants, they conjure up a world of triads, gangsterism and wicked, venal people whom all right-thinking people should condemn; but first, my children's school friends, party members and people I see in the supermarket did not start out seeking to subvert the system; and secondly, many of them are settled members of the community. I have dealt with pupils who have been shocked to find that some little boy whom they have known since nursery is facing deportation because—guess what?—his parents are overstayers.
    I want to speak about what the new clause and its limitations will mean in practice in the context of my life and my constituency experience. As colleagues have said, the three-month period is not enough. Most immigrants—even legal immigrants—tend to keep their heads down. I remember previous deadlines for regularising people's situations, and when one was set by the Government of the day, I had to say firmly to my own mother—who was here perfectly legally, but on her Jamaican passport, to which she was very attached—that she should go and get a British passport because that was the best thing for her to do. Most immigrants—for all sorts of reasons and even if they are here legally—do not want to draw themselves to the attention of the authorities. How much worse are things for those who are here illegally?
    Subsection (4) of the new clause says:
    "The Secretary of State must publicise the effect of this section".
    Presumably, that refers to the gentlemen and ladies in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, and we will come to its operations as we go through the Bill.
    282
    Some Members are slavish in congratulating the IND, and I am sure that many of its personnel are very nice people who go to church and are kind to animals, but the level of efficiency and the appalling state of the IND at present give me no confidence that it will publicise the effect of the subsection.
    In effect, and as so often happens, these matters may come down to word of mouth. I do not think that three months is enough time for news of the subsection's effect to get round the Nigerian, Ghanaian, Iraqi and Somali communities in my constituency by word of mouth, or for their members to be persuaded to present themselves; and many people will miss out if the regularisation period is as brief as that suggested in the new clause.
    I also think that there will be a problem towards the end of the three months when news of the subsection's effect finally gets round by word of mouth. There will be a big rush. How will the IND, which has boxes and boxes of unopened cases and misplaced files, deal with any sudden rush? We know what happened when the IND had to deal with previous rushes.
    Some people have said that the new clause is a technical measure, but I know that, in the months and years to come, I will be dealing with some very sad cases as a consequence of it—cases involving people who, to all intents and purposes, are settled members of the community. Yes, technically they are outside the law, and yes, they are economic migrants; but have matters come to such a point that we, as a House, will condemn people who did not set out to subvert the law, and who are trying to play their part in the community?
    It would be churlish not to welcome the extent to which the Government are meeting the need by tabling new clause 1, but I do not think that it will deal with circumstances in my constituency, and I hope that they will try to improve their proposals in another place.
    11 pm
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: We have had a short but useful debate, in which hon. Members have been able to express a welcome of sorts for our proposals. Some reactions have been warmer than others, but we have listened to what has been said, and have responded with the new clause and the amendments grouped with it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) said that overstayers could use other avenues of appeal. I think that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) alluded to that as well. If overstayers wish to raise a family issue, or another issue that might properly be raised on the basis of the European convention on human rights, they are entitled to use that appeal mechanism on family and other compassionate grounds, provided that those grounds come within the provisions of the ECHR. However, we are introducing new powers for adjudicators to deal robustly with representatives who might seek to abuse such a system.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) mentioned the Daily Express articles. I shall not comment on the case in question because it is before the courts; but overstayers are breaching immigration controls, and that is against the law. The Government were elected on the basis of their promise to establish firm immigration controls, and that sometimes means removing people who have been here for some time. People must face up to that unpalatable fact. Sometimes

    283
    people will the ends, but not the means. It is important for us to convey the message that overstaying is breaching the law, and we must ensure that we enforce the law.
    Our aim is to create a system that works. We want a system that considers the particular circumstances of individuals, and offers appeal rights where they are appropriate; but we do not feel that people who have no right to remain here should be able to do so, and drag out the process of their removal.
    Ms Abbott: Does my hon. Friend accept that some people are overstayers owing to circumstances beyond their control, either because they came here as children or because they came here as partners of men who either turned out to have other wives or subsequently abused them? I see a lot of that in some communities.
    Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend has written to me a number of times citing cases that she has taken to Ministers on compassionate grounds. We listen carefully, and, if there is a strong case, Ministers have discretion to make decisions on such grounds. That right will remain with them. However, lengthy legal procedures—and deportation procedures take a long time—enable people with no right to be here to drag things out, and that is unacceptable.
    The hon. Member for Hertsmere asked me whether the criteria for the decisions would be the same as they are now. The answer is yes: there will be no relaxation of the criteria. As for how long the regularisation period will last, we envisage a period of about a year, but we shall consult various groups and listen to the debate as it progresses.
    A number of hon. Members asked about publicity. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that we are committed to proper publicity. We aim to advertise in various ethnic minority media, including some of the international publications that are read by groups that may be overstaying in the country; but there are other ways of conveying our message through community groups.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow welcomed the changes, but sought more. I understand why he did so, but he was right to say that we had listened. I think that we have gone as far as we can, but we shall continue to listen, as far as we are able, during proceedings in another place.
    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) sought more detail on the process. That detail is more properly given during consideration of the regulations that will, in due course, evolve from the Bill, but essentially, the idea is that there will be a period during which will have to apply. It will be properly advertised. A decision will be made under the current criteria on whether people should be allowed to remain. If the decision goes against them, they will be entitled to an appeal.
    The appeal will occur in much the way that it does now, except, as the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, that the backlog of appeals is now quite low, so the decision on appeal should be able to be made fairly quickly. We intend to ensure that we keep that appeal backlog low, so that such decisions can be made rapidly.
    284
    My hon. Friend the Member for Slough was concerned about overstayers with families. One of my problems as a Minister arises when hon. Members are concerned about the families of people who are subject to deportation proceedings. Someone who is deported is prevented from re-entering the country for three years. Their wives and children may become very disturbed about the deportation. The wife and children, or the other spouse and children, may not need to leave the country. They therefore have a choice. Do they go with someone who may be out of the country for three years, or do they remain? That is a difficult choice. It often deters people who have a deportation order against them from going voluntarily.
    What will happen with the removal process is that there will not be the three-year period, so people with—
    Fiona Mactaggart: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. O'Brien: Let me finish describing the position; then I will give way.
    People who have been removed and have a right to re-enter the country because they are married to someone—they have a lawful right to be here—may be able to apply soon at the nearest embassy or high commission to re-enter lawfully and to ensure that their families are kept together. That is a more sensible approach. So my advice to Mr. Singh is that, if he is overstaying, he should obey the law. If he has good family reasons for wanting to remain in the UK—my hon. Friend mentioned that he was married—he should go back to his country and make an application properly, as other people do, at the high commission or wherever it is—presumably, it will be in New Delhi. If he has a legal right to do so, he will in due course be able to re-enter and to rejoin his family.
    Of course, if Mr. Singh were removed under the deportation order procedure, he might be prevented from coming back for three years. However, if he has no legal right to be here, he will not be able to return.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Does the Minister accept that one reason why people are reluctant to do exactly that is the fact that, in some parts of the world, there are long delays before people are even interviewed on such applications? Perhaps if he could tell my constituent that he would not face a six-month wait before the interview on his application for return, my constituent might find it more possible to go to a country that he has not visited since he was 12 to make a fresh application.
    Mr. O'Brien: The delays are not that long. The maximum delays in places such as Islamabad are about six months, which I accept is a long delay for the family, particularly when children are young. There are ways in which, in particular cases, it is possible to expedite those interviews, but in most other countries there are not such lengthy delays.
    My hon. Friend will know that we have been making substantial efforts to reduce the backlog of interviews in various countries. We will continue to do so. She will be aware of the way in which the Foreign Office and Home Office will be integrating operations on issuing visas. I hope that the greater co-operation between the Home Office and Foreign Office will enable the sort of decisions that she wants made to be made much more quickly.

    285
    My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) described the life of some overstayers—working in sweatshops and living in fear. It must surely be far better to return properly, if they have a right to do so by reason of marriage, to regularise their stay and behave in a lawful way, as most immigrants do.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington referred to her parents as economic migrants. My parents were economic migrants, too, but they came here lawfully and obeyed the law. I trust that my hon. Friend's parents obeyed the law. That is what is important. Our job as lawmakers is to make good laws and then to ensure that they are enforced. Some people do not like enforcing laws because they may be unpalatable, but we have a responsibility as lawmakers to do so.
    The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) referred to the consultation with various interest groups. They have been enormously helpful to us and have prevented us from making mistakes that we might otherwise have made. We are entirely responsible for the decisions and many of the interest groups will disagree with some of them. It is important to keep the door open to dialogue because it helps us not to make mistakes and it helps them to understand where we are coming from and why we are making decisions. I have found the process of opening up the Home Office valuable and I hope that the interest groups have, too. We will seek to continue to do that.
    The hon. Gentleman seemed to have some misunderstanding about giving advice. If someone applies in time, under the variation of leave order, the leave is extended until 28 days after the date of the decision. So people in that position are not overstayers. They cannot overstay, whether consideration of their application takes two days, two weeks, two months or even two years. They are not in the precarious position that he feared, so he can reassure people on that point.
    The hon. Member for Hertsmere referred to the guillotine motion and complained that, if we wanted to listen, we would not be guillotining debate. We have had hours of debate in Committee, in the House, with interest groups and among Members of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman seemed almost to reduce the hours of consideration in Committee to an irrelevance, particularly the Special Standing Committee procedure in which we were engaged. This must be one of the most consulted-on Bills ever.
    We offered two days of debate, but yesterday Conservative Members decided to muck about like a bunch of schoolboys, filibustering to disrupt the people's business. If Conservative Members have points worth making on this Bill that are so important, they should have curtailed the pranksters' antics yesterday. They are the architects of their own misfortune. Let us get on to talk about asylum and immigration and stop rehearsing the debates of earlier this afternoon.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can the Minister explain what is meant by the people's business that hon. Members are not supposed to discuss? Is that from central casting—or did the Minister make it up?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to advise the hon. Gentleman on such matters.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 2

    REMOVAL OF ASYLUM CLAIMANTS UNDER STANDING ARRANGEMENTS WITH MEMBER STATES
    '.—(1) A member State is to be regarded for the purposes of subsection (2) as—

    (a) a place where a person's life and liberty is not threatened by reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion; and

    (b) a place from which a person will not be sent to another country otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention.

    (2) Nothing in section 6 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 (protection of claimants from deportation etc.) prevents a person who has made a claim for asylum ("the claimant") from being removed from the United Kingdom to a member State if—

    (a) the Secretary of State has certified that—

    (ii) the member State has accepted that, under standing arrangements, it is the responsible State in relation to the claimant's claim for asylum; and

    (ii) in his opinion, the claimant is not a national or citizen of the member State to which he is to be sent;

    (b) the certificate has not been set aside on an appeal under section 51; and

    (c) the time for giving notice of such an appeal has expired and no appeal is pending.

    (3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), an appeal is not to be regarded as pending if the Secretary of State has issued a certificate under section 58(2)(a) in relation to the allegation on which it is founded.
    (4) "Standing arrangements" means arrangements in force as between member States for determining which state is responsible for considering applications for asylum.'.—[Mr. Straw.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    11.15 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 3—Removal of asylum claimants in other circumstances.
    Government amendments Nos. 56 and 58 to 60.
    Mr. Straw: The new clause is the centrepiece of this group. For the most part, the other amendments in the group are consequential.
    The objective of new clause 2 is to deal with the problem—which was identified in the White Paper that we published last July—of lengthy and unnecessary delays to the operation of the Dublin convention caused by disputes over the safety of transfers to other member states. We made it clear in the White Paper, and in Committee, that we perceive that to be a major problem, and that we might table an amendment to deal with it later in the Bill's passage. New clause 2 is the result of those considerations.

    287
    New clause 2 would replace section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 in so far as it applies to asylum seekers transferred to other European Union states under what are referred to as "standing arrangements" for determining responsibility for asylum seekers. Those arrangements are currently provided for by the Dublin convention. As my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will notice, the clause itself does not specifically refer to the Dublin convention, as that convention may be superseded in the future. Moreover, every hon. Member will know, possibly by heart, that article 63 of the treaty of Amsterdam provides for the possibility, in the next five years, of a new instrument in the sphere.
    The House will also note that new clause 2 provides that
    "A member state is to be regarded for the purposes of subsection (2)"
    as essentially a place where convention criteria are satisfied, and as
    "a place from which a person will not be sent to another country otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention."
    Before I continue explaining the changes, I should mention that the new clause would also make it a requirement that removal may not proceed if an appeal is outstanding, or if there is the possibility of such an appeal—or, of course, if there is a successful appeal—on the basis of the European convention on human rights. We are proposing certain limitations on the right of appeal on ECHR grounds in cases that I shall explain when I speak to amendment No. 60.
    We are proposing those changes to the approach established in section 2 of the 1996 Act, first, because of the very real problems that we are experiencing in operation of the Dublin convention within the legislative framework of the 1996 Act, which seems not to have anticipated the convention. The second reason for our proposals is our conviction that, in the context of the Dublin convention, some of the current requirements are no longer necessary.
    I had quite a few surprises when I became Home Secretary. I discovered, among other delights, that I had a dignified function in the election of new bishops to the Anglican Church.
    Miss Widdecombe: Better you than me.
    Mr. Straw: Yes. I have to administer an oath of homage, which new bishops have to make to Her Majesty, that was written by Queen Elizabeth I and has remained unchanged ever since. The oath refers, by implication, to those who have converted to Rome, and promises them a dire fate—as was befalling them, one way or the other, in the 16th century.
    Various other delights awaited me. I had not properly realised that the Home Office was responsible for burials, or that we were somehow princes of the Channel Islands and of the Isle of Man.
    I had also not comprehended—I do not remember it ever being mentioned in the House, in all our fascinating debates on immigration and asylum—that, in 1990, the previous Government had signed the Dublin convention. Hon. Members should mark that the previous Government
    288
    signed it at the height of their Europhobia, when Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister. Although I have yet to discover who was responsible for appending his or her name to the convention, the previous Government did sign up to it—which, happily for them, did not come into force until October 1997. I think that they had realised that, by then, they would be long since gone.
    Mr. Clappison rose—
    Mr. Allan: He signed it.
    Mr. Straw: If the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) signed it, I shall give way.
    Mr. Clappison: The Home Secretary may not be aware of the fact, but the Committee Hansard for the 1996 Bill shows that the then Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), not only specifically mentioned the Dublin convention but welcomed it.
    Mr. Straw: I look forward to consulting the record. I am happy to say that I was not a member of that Standing Committee. As the late Enoch Powell once said, the best way to keep a secret is to speak it in a Standing Committee.
    The convention came into force in October 1997. Its purpose is not a problem and may have been given a general welcome, but its wording is a major problem that has caused immense difficulties in the European Union. It is already difficult to find sufficient evidence to show that a particular member state is responsible for individual asylum seekers. The added hurdle of disputes about the safety of member states makes matters even worse.
    There are many hundreds of Dublin convention cases in a growing judicial review backlog. They are held up behind a series of test cases in which the courts are examining whether it is reasonable for me, as Home Secretary, to consider whether a member state of the European Union will abide by its obligations under the 1951 convention. A range of questions about the application of the asylum procedures in other member states and their interpretation of the 1951 convention can be at issue. In each case the representatives of the asylum seeker argue that an alleged deficiency in the other state's procedures makes it unreasonable for me to consider it a safe third country.
    The scope for finding new points of detail in the laws and procedures of other member states on which to seek to delay removal is almost unlimited. An applicant's representative might point to a new report by a non-governmental organisation that alleges that an aspect of the procedure in another member state is defective. A case can be held in limbo for a year or more while it works through the courts. During that period it is impossible to progress the case of any applicant raising similar grounds.
    As a result, almost all removals to a particular member state are delayed for at least the time that the case takes to get through the courts. We also find that no sooner has a case concluded in our favour than the applicant's representatives find another issue on which to challenge the decision and we are back to square one.

    289
    During our debates and in discussions outside the Chamber, but within the precincts of the House, many hon. Members have said that we need to process applications quickly and enforce the decisions. I agree, but in case after case the delay is caused not by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office, but by the fact that in this country, much more than in any other EU state that I can think of, particularly as the courts have developed the concept of judicial review, the opportunities for making one appeal and piling it on another have become disproportionate to the mischief of judicial maladministration, with which the courts are trying to deal through the process of judicial review.
    If that pattern continues indefinitely it will be a constant obstacle to the effective operation of the Dublin convention. Around a third of all cases are presently delayed in that way.
    The consequences are serious. There is an obvious risk of damage to our immigration control. The longer that an asylum seeker is in the UK, the harder it generally is to effect their removal. Over the coming years there could be considerable costs associated with that. In our debates on the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 it arose that under section 2 it would be possible for people to be returned to one so-called safe third country—the definition was not originally limited to EU states—and then leapfrog back to a fourth, fifth or sixth country. Later, on the Floor of the House, we were able to secure support for changes to section 2, which certainly improved its operation.
    Prior to the 1996 Act, asylum seekers who were to be returned to member states had an in-country right of appeal, and it has been suggested that reintroducing such a right might solve the problem. As my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) made clear in Committee, that would not prevent applicants from finding issues on which to apply for judicial review after their appeal, which in my judgment would only add to the delay. The cases often involve very detailed comparisons between our asylum system and that obtaining in other states and there would always be scope for raising new issues after appeal.
    I believe that the proposal is justified by the safeguards in the Dublin convention—which were obviously not in force when the 1996 Act was passed—and the need to make the convention work effectively, as well as the high standards of asylum procedures in other member states. Such provision is not without precedent in other member states.
    Germany is well regarded for its application of human rights. Since the war it has been almost rule-bound in its consciousness of the need to observe human rights, and its basic law has a structure of constitutional courts. In Germany, however, other member states are considered safe third countries as a matter of law. It is also notable that other member states simply do not experience anything like the same amount of litigation over these issues. Their courts are prepared to accept that member states can be regarded as safe third countries.
    Ms Abbott: This matter was discussed in our proceedings on the 1996 Act. Is not my right hon. Friend aware that there were serious problems with people being
    290
    returned to France who were then passed directly to Zaire and Congo? There have been occasions when EU member states have not proved safe for genuine asylum seekers.
    Mr. Straw: I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed. I have examined in some detail the arrangements that apply in France. The French authorities, and the police in particular, tend to treat people who are regarded not as asylum seekers but as wholly illegal immigrants—they are called "sans-papiers"—in a fairly peremptory way, but that does not apply—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should face the Chair, not the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).
    Mr. Straw: Indeed. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    The French do not treat asylum claims in so peremptory a manner. The French office for the consideration of asylum claims, OFPRA—I apologise to the House for the fact that I cannot recite off the top of my head what that acronym stands for—is a highly respected organisation, and if one reads the French press, as I do from time to time, one will quite often see stories about the length of time that it takes to deal with asylum cases. It applies itself strictly to the law.
    We do not intend to return asylum seekers unless either their case has already been dealt with, in which case it falls to the other member state to take appropriate enforcement action, or there is an undertaking that it will be dealt with.
    Mr. Allan: Does the Home Secretary acknowledge that there has been a successful challenge against the Government on the ground that the French do not treat non-state parties as persecutors under the refugee convention, whereas we do? In France, persecution by Islamic militants would not be recognised as it is here.
    11.30 pm
    Mr. Straw: Whenever there is an international convention—and this applies also to the European convention on human rights—there will always be some difference in the interpretation of that convention within the domestic law of the individual countries. That is called the margin of appreciation. The hon. Gentleman takes an interest in such matters and if he considers the interpretation of the European convention, he will notice significant differences between countries.
    We are assisted in the interpretation of the European convention on human rights because we have what amounts to an international court that is able to determine what margin of appreciation should apply. There are many defects in the jurisprudence—but not in the original purpose—of the 1951 refugee convention, one of which is that there is no way that the margin of appreciation can be defined internationally. Different member states define it differently and it is open to argument which way is right.
    There is a substantial argument that says that the interpretation applied by France, in respect of non-state parties, and by Italy, Germany and Switzerland—which has a good record on human rights and refugees—is much

    291
    closer to the original intentions of the framers of the 1951 convention than that of our courts in one or two cases.
    Mr. Corbyn: A few moments ago my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) asked the Home Secretary specifically about the situation in France and its methods of removing people, especially to west African countries. In his discussions with the French Interior Minister, what undertakings were given to the British Government about the French formulation for adherence to the original convention?
    Mr. Straw: I have talked to my opposite number, Jean-Pierre Chevèenement, on many occasions about the French asylum system. People parody the French judicial system, but France is subject to the constitution and the application of the law to a similar extent to this country. Indeed, in practice although perhaps not in legal theory, there is considerable convergence in the way that the French approach many issues. They have detailed judicial procedures for processing asylum applications. They are in place, they are followed and they are subject to the European convention on human rights. From time to time, France is in the dock before the European Court of Human Rights, just as is every other signatory state, and it adheres to the court's judgments. I hope that that provides reassurance.
    Some people are confused—I was myself confused at one point—by the fact that the French police may deal peremptorily with people who are not asylum seekers. Such people are wholly illegal and are not seeking asylum. However, that is a separate issue from those who have applied for asylum. Some thousands of people—fewer than in this country—apply for asylum in France each year and their applications are considered on their merits.
    The most important safeguards that were introduced by the Dublin convention are that applicants are now returned to another member state only if that state has accepted beforehand that it is responsible for considering the claim and if specific arrangements have been made for the transfer. That is an important development. Those safeguards were not present when the 1996 Act was passed. Indeed, in opposition we argued for those safeguards during the passage of the 1996 Act.
    I have spoken of my belief that other member states are able to meet the full effect of the 1951 convention. It is also important to note that the 1951 convention is not the only international instrument that provides protection to asylum seekers. In addition to the convention, protection is provided by the European convention on human rights.
    I said in my opening remarks that I would refer to amendment No. 60 when I was explaining new clause 2.
    Government amendment No. 60 would amend clause 58, which relates to miscellaneous limitations on rights of appeal. It would place an important limitation on European convention on human rights appeals in cases under new clause 2, and also on cases under new clause 3 that involve a member state or a designated safe third country. It would provide that, where the Secretary of State was satisfied that a claim that removal was in breach
    292
    of the convention was itself manifestly unfounded, the right of appeal could not be exercised while the applicant was in the United Kingdom.
    Such provision is necessary to prevent transfers in such cases being delayed by spurious allegations that the transfer would be in breach of the convention. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington that we understand why people want to come to this country and remain here. I make no judgment about their motives: we must work on the basis that, in almost every case, people want to come here to better themselves. However, that desire has to be balanced against the need, in the wider public interest, to secure effective immigration control and—very importantly—to secure fairness for those of our constituents and their families who are willing to avail themselves of rights under the law. Those rights often mean that applications for entry into the United Kingdom have to be considered outside the country, rather than within it.
    Any misuse of the certification power under amendment No. 60 would be challengeable by judicial review. The power will be exercised only with great care.
    I hope that I have explained the reasoning behind new clause 2 and the associated amendments to the satisfaction of the House.
    Mr. Clappison: I welcome the Home Secretary to our proceedings, and the consistent calmness that he has brought with him. That is in contrast to the mood swings that the Under-Secretary seems to be experiencing. After being soothing for a time, he has displayed some abrasiveness that is not entirely called for.
    I appreciate the gratitude that the Home Secretary expressed in a written answer last Wednesday to all the members of the Standing Committee and Special Standing Committee. However, I was surprised when he imposed a guillotine on debate a few days later, but I shall have to ponder that mystery. The Under-Secretary said that there has been so much debate already that there is no real need for more, but the Government are introducing entirely new provisions that are in addition to the sensitive matters that the Under-Secretary agreed to reconsider on Report. That is rather strange, and I hate to think of the wails of indignation that would have greeted a Conservative Government who had acted in that way.
    In principle, I do not take issue with what the Home Secretary has said in connection with new clause 2 and the associated amendments. Later in the debate, I hope that he will be able to satisfy my natural curiosity about the background to the proposal. As he conceded in his opening remarks, it did not arise from the debate in Committee, but was under consideration last year and appeared in a consultation document last July. If the Government were considering it for so long, why has it taken until now for them to put it into the Bill?
    This sensitive proposal takes away a person's right to seek judicial review. We may not consider the proposal to be controversial, but expert groups such as the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and the other august bodies that gave evidence to the Special Standing Committee would like to have expressed their views. The opportunity to do so has been taken away by the way in which the Government have introduced the provision.
    Mr. Allan: It may assist the hon. Gentleman to know that the Immigration Law Practitioners Association has seen the

    293
    new clause at this late stage and has described it as draconian, unprincipled and wholly without justification. The association would have liked to elaborate further in the Special Standing Committee.
    Mr. Clappison: Even when I do not agree with someone, I like to hear his or her point of view, particularly in the case of experts. The Government want to close down debate and ignore the experts while pretending to go through the motions of holding a Special Standing Committee.
    We do not oppose the new clause. The Home Secretary has conceded that it builds on the provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. The Under-Secretary was intemperate—perhaps even reckless—when he spoke about that Act, much of which is reproduced in the Bill. On carriers liability, employment checks and rights of appeal, the Bill reproduces large parts of the 1996 Act. We can hardly oppose something that we enacted.
    Remarks made on the 1996 Bill by Labour Members about the safe third country principle will make interesting reading alongside what they said in Special Standing Committee and their welcome to the Dublin Commissioner. My hon. Friends will recall how our provisions were criticised from pillar to post by Labour Members, some of whom have sat on the Front Bench.
    We value consistency, accepting that asylum seekers can, in some circumstances, be removed to safe third countries. No legal impediment should get in the way, allowing cases to be dragged out before the courts. Section 3 of the 1996 Act removed the in-country right of appeal for that reason. The Bill goes further. Since that right was removed, some asylum seekers have successfully sought judicial review.
    The Government's actions are justified. The safe third country principle should be applied without protracted legal proceedings, notwithstanding what Labour Members said in 1996. We are, however, curious to know why the Government have introduced the provision so late, bypassing all debate and expert evidence in the Special Standing Committee.
    Mr. Gerrard: I find it difficult to deal with new clauses that were tabled just a few days ago. They are technical and it would have been useful to have seen them earlier. In particular, it would have been helpful if I had been able to consult outside organisations about their effect.
    Safe third country appeals were introduced by the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. People threatened with removal to another country on the ground that that country should determine their asylum application were given a right of appeal by that Act. In 1996, the Conservative Government decided that they had got it wrong and took that appeal right away. The original intention was to remove appeal rights entirely. I have looked back at what was said on Report in 1996. Then, we said:
    "Originally, the Government believed that persons should return to those countries to make their appeal",
    and we were glad that the then Government recognised
    "that that was impractical and would have guaranteed no fairness or protection for the individuals involved."
    294
    We also said:
    "If a political asylum procedure is to be fair and perceived as fair, it is very difficult to cover all eventualities, even in the European Union."—[Official Report, 21 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 447.]
    I have concerns and I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether my interpretation of the clauses is accurate. They seem to say that if we are dealing with someone who is to be removed to a country that is a signatory to the Dublin convention, they will prevent that person from having access to judicial review. In the case of removal to a country that is not a signatory to the Dublin convention, they would stop the person having appeal rights before he or she is removed.
    Some of our arguments three years ago, about the difficulties of exercising the appeal rights after one has been removed, still apply. I have not been able to find out how many appeals there have been since 1996—I looked through asylum statistics in Home Office publications this afternoon—involving people who were removed from the country and who, in theory, had the right of appeal from abroad. I suspect that the numbers are relatively small.
    The problem that that creates for me in trying to understand the reasoning behind the necessity for the changes is that I have always understood that decisions on asylum cases should be made on the basis of what is happening or has happened to the individual concerned. That was our fundamental objection to the white list that was introduced in the 1996 Act—we are now getting rid of that. The fundamental objection to that list is that it made assumptions about a country as a whole, rather than asking what was the position of the individual in relation to that country. A similar line is being followed in this Bill as regards the Dublin convention.
    In the next few years, there are likely to be changes; if some of the provisions of the Amsterdam treaty are taken forward, there may be some significant changes, with agreements throughout the European Union on minimum standards. However, we are not there yet.
    The other question, about which I am not at all clear, is what will happen in the next few years if the European Union expands. The clauses mention member states. What happens if countries that are not signatories to the Dublin convention join the EU? For one reason or another, we may well have granted asylum to people who have come from some of the states that may join in the next few years. There may be some question marks about the human rights standards in those countries.
    Therefore, I am not clear how the provision will operate. I understand the problem with judicial review in the past few years, as Ministers do not want hundreds of cases queuing up behind one or two judicial review cases. I am not a lawyer and I may be getting this completely wrong, but I have always worried about judicial review being substituted for an appeal. That is what happened in 1996, when the appeal rights on safe third countries were taken away. Judicial review became almost a substitute.
    In general, many asylum cases are refused. People go to appeal and a small number get permission to go to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Very few get leave to go to judicial review, although many of them may try. That suggests that a comprehensive process of decision making followed by an appeal under the law is much more difficult to take to judicial review. Perhaps that is at the root of what has gone wrong during the past three years. The removal of appeal rights brought in under the Asylum

    295
    and Immigration Act 1996 has left a vacuum into which lawyers have happily rushed. As we know, they are quite glad to go for judicial review and to spin matters out and keep the process going.
    I find this matter difficult and I am not sure whether I have exactly understood the amendments—obviously, they are highly technical. As the Bill progresses through another place, I hope that we shall have the opportunity to reflect on them. There are worries at the back of my mind about whether we are getting the matter right, because some people might be sent back to another EU country, but will later find that their asylum claim has not been determined there and that they are to be moved on to somewhere else. Alternatively, the claim might be determined in a way that would strike us as unreasonable.
    Mr. Allan: This measure, with the previous new clause, sums up the Government's approach in amending the Bill, in that the previous new clause made some minor concessions, but this one introduces a new element with a potentially significant and serious impact on asylum seekers. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) over why the measure was introduced at such a late date. The sittings of the Special Standing Committee at which evidence was taken worked well; I hope that becomes the norm rather than the exception. However, that can work well only if substantive issues are introduced at an early stage. This is a substantive issue.
    The matter seems to represent the Government's contribution to the arms race that seems to be taking place between the Government and the courts over judicial review. In later parts of the Bill, the Secretary of State denies himself the power to consider preferences as to where asylum seekers want to live, in order not to be taken to judicial review over whether he exercised that discretion properly. Perhaps Ministers will increasingly become automatons, who merely make standard decisions in order to avoid judicial review as that arms race continues. The Government—and perhaps the previous Government—have adopted a fairly combative approach to the courts in the way in which judicial review is exercised.
    In this context, it is important to consider what judicial review does when it is exercised in cases under the Dublin convention and those in which safe countries are involved. The Secretary of State said that there would be serious consequences if the cases of a queue of people were undergoing judicial review. The consequences for an individual who is returned to a third country and is not treated properly are incredibly serious. That is literally a matter of life and death.
    The kind of cases that have been considered are, for example, those of Kosovan asylum seekers that occurred before the beginning of the conflict. The British Government have now, quite properly, decided to apply 100 per cent. recognition to cases of asylum claims from Kosovans. However, before the conflict started, an individual took a case about being returned to Germany to the Court of Appeal and won, because it was clear that there was a significant chance that the person would be returned to Kosovo from Germany. There were domestic German reasons for that, although I understand that Germany does well in taking a large number of refugees.
    296
    However, the consequences of a return from Germany to Kosovo could have been serious. We all saw what happened to people in Kosovo before and during the conflict.
    There is also the Algerian example. The Home Secretary referred to the fact that we apply provisions differently, but arguments about the wrong kind of persecution are deeply disturbing. We seem to be saying that we are quite content to send people back to the wrong kind of persecution; we are content that they should be persecuted by paramilitaries in Colombia or by Islamic militants in Algeria. As long as the state is not carrying out the persecution, we are not prepared to apply the law.
    The Secretary of State says that there is a problem with the Dublin convention. I accept that; and I accept what he says about the problems over the different definitions of the 1951 convention. However, I do not want us to take the lowest common denominator, whereby we all head for a minimal definition—especially in the European states, which are among the wealthiest in the world and are more able to offer refuge to individuals who are fleeing persecution. I do not want this country to play a part in driving down standards, by saying, when reinterpreting the 1951 convention, that it is acceptable to use the margin of error and to allow people to face the wrong kind of persecution.
    I hope that the Government will tell us why they have introduced the provision at this late stage, and how they intend to drag up standards, rather than drive them down. If the Government are determined to adopt the approach of having 100 per cent. confidence in safe third countries and of not wanting the courts to intervene and consider the issues of differential recognition rates at all, there is a duty incumbent on them to ensure that our European partners have standards that match our own. There is a strong Somali community in Sheffield and Somalia offers a good illustration of my argument. I understand that, because Somalia is deemed to be a civil war state rather than a case of an established Government persecuting individuals, the conflict there would not be regarded in Germany as sufficient grounds for refugee status.
    I was pleased when, during the British presidency of the European Union, the Government announced that a common European approach to immigration and refugee issues would be a key matter. However, all has been quiet since then and we have dealt only with domestic legislation. I doubt that the Home Secretary will be successful in reassuring us, so we shall revisit the issue in detail in another place, where we have legal minds who will apply themselves to it. However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to offer us some hope that the Government are facing up to the challenge that they set themselves during the British presidency to reach a common European approach and to make the Dublin convention work.
    I also hope that the right hon. Gentleman will state that, in that effort, the Government's intention is to meet the highest possible standards, and not to go down the route of the lowest common denominator. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) said, some of our future EU partners will be countries in eastern Europe whose records are not entirely laudable on these matters. To go

    297
    for the lowest common denominator would be a dangerous path and would make the new clause deeply disturbing to the Liberal Democrats.
    Ms Abbott: I join colleagues from the Special Standing Committee in expressing regret that these important and highly technical new clauses were not tabled in good time, so that the Committee could take expert evidence on them and debate them properly. Despite their having the support of some Opposition Members, there is no doubt that the new clauses will have to be considered more fully in the other place.
    The amendments deal with issues on which, during the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1996, Labour Members spoke at great length. Concerns still remain in respect of differential standards and differential interpretations of asylum issues within EU member states. It is not a pleasant thought that we as a Government are reduced to playing pass the parcel with asylum seekers. It is difficult to comment on these technical new clauses, having had only a few days in which to study them, but one cannot lose sight of the suspicion that the convenience of Home Office officials is being elevated above the rights of asylum seekers. My hon. Friends have raised serious questions about the new clauses and I hope that Ministers will be able to answer them—if not in the minutes remaining, then when we resume the debate tomorrow.
    Mr. Straw: In the closing minutes of the debate this evening, I hope to deal with some of the questions raised. My hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) all asked why the Government were not able to table the amendments and the new clause at an earlier stage in the Bill's passage. I wish that we had been able to do so. They were not an afterthought—the issues they deal with were flagged up in the White Paper published in July, and, if they had wanted to do so, it was open to the non-governmental organisations that gave evidence to the Special Standing Committee to anticipate that we might make a change—
    It being Twelve o'clock, the debate stood adjourned, pursuant to Order [this day].
    Debate to be resumed this day.

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

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
    That the draft Scottish Parliament (Assistance for Registered Political Parties) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Question agreed to.

WHO Environment and Health Conference
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
12 midnight
Mr. Tony Colman: I thank Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly as an Adjournment debate is in progress.
Mr. Colman: I thank Madam Speaker for allowing this debate on the World Health Organisation third ministerial conference on environment and health, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will open at 10 am in the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre. As I said during business questions last Thursday, I urge the Government to timetable a full debate in the House before the summer recess on the outcomes of the conference, given the important policy areas to be covered by the conference in the next three days, which include the United Kingdom environment and health action plan.
In this short Adjournment debate, I will cover what I believe to be the main areas of concern, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response—if not immediately—when she enters the Chamber, and subsequently in writing. This is the third conference in the WHO European region environment and health process, which has been running for 12 years. The process brings together representatives of 870 million people from 51 countries, including all the countries of the European Union, central and eastern European countries, the newly independent states and the central Asian republics.
As hon. Members will be aware, there are huge differences in the levels of health between countries. Since the decline of the Soviet Union, both public health and the state of the environment have diminished across Europe. However, it is also important to recognise—as did Acheson in his report into health inequalities in the United Kingdom—that great inequalities can exist in the health of different groups within the same nation. I hope that our Government will act on the basis of that report, independent of the WHO environment and health process.
The first conference in Frankfurt in 1989 issued a set of "principles for public policy" to guide Governments' actions on environment and health. The second conference held in Helsinki in 1994 called on Governments to produce national environment and health action plans—some of which have been ground-breaking in their encouragement of joined-up thinking between different ministries and Departments in countries across Europe. The third conference, starting in the morning, hosted by the United Kingdom Government, focuses on action. All involved sincerely hope that implementation will begin, and that outlook is reflected in the conference theme: "Action in Partnership". I shall take this opportunity to consider some of the outcomes of the ministerial conference.
First, I note that the main outcome is to be a legal protocol on water and health, which is the protocol to the 1992 Helsinki convention on the protection and use of trans-boundary water courses and international lakes.

299
The aim is to prevent, control and reduce the incidence of water-related diseases through collaboration on water management and the protection of health and the environment. I am sure that that laudable proposal, which has been developed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and the WHO regional office for Europe, has cross-party support in the House.
The protocol addresses measures to achieve adequate supplies of wholesome drinking water, adequate sanitation and the effective protection of water resources, and safeguards against water-related disease arising from the use of water for recreational purposes. I am sure that all those who swim in the sea—including me—support that latter aim. I hope and trust that the Minister will send a message to her European colleagues to sign, ratify and implement the protocol.
The European region as a whole faces significant problems. According to the World Health Organisation, one in seven people in the WHO European region do not have access to safe water. Surely that must be considered a violation of one of the most basic human rights. Furthermore, at the dawn of the third millennium, diseases such as cholera, typhoid fever and hepatitis A—which we thought had long since disappeared from Europe—are reappearing. In Latvia, for example, several hundred cases of hepatitis A and bacterial dysentery are attributed to contaminated drinking water each year.
Given that the protocol has been agreed and is to be signed on Friday, what will be done to ensure that its worthy objectives are implemented? How are we to guarantee that the protocol is translated into meaningful action on the ground? Will the Government consider hosting a funders meeting, bringing together the World bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and other funding sources, as well as representatives of citizens and non-governmental organisations, in a partnership to examine how we move from words to action?
Partnership is the recurring theme in the conference proposals. I particularly welcome the commitment to public participation, access to information and access to justice in environment and health matters and the reiterated commitment to the Athens convention of 1998. What are the Government's plans to support further work in that field? I have long been a supporter of the local Agenda 21 process, with its emphasis on economic development, environmental protection and social equity and the involvement of all local stakeholders. Of course, many local authorities have ensured that links between health and the environment are part of their local Agenda 21 plans.
The WHO healthy cities project has also made a significant contribution to improving public health and the environment at the level where it counts most—the local level. The UK is to have the national environment and health action plan, which also proceeds on the Agenda 21 stakeholder approach. When will that be launched? What key indicators do the Government intend to use in that important policy document?
I note that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will tomorrow chair an important session of the conference, on early human health effects of climate change and stratospheric ozone depletion in Europe.
300
I hope that he will be able to support the proposals on contraction and convergence being made by Globe, the cross-party MPs' group on the environment, and will urge on all countries present the urgent need to sign and ratify the Kyoto proposals as an absolute minimum domestic action.
Yesterday's Chatham house conference on implementing the Kyoto protocol demonstrates the need for urgent action at COP-5 in Bonn this autumn. I commend to the House the suggestion of the honourable Simon Upton of New Zealand, who has led in this field, for the European Union to negotiate a deal on Russian hot air in return for finance to deal with environmental degradation in Russia.
The World Health Organisation's contribution to monitoring the impact of climate change on human health is to be applauded and, I hope, developed. However, I hope also that the focus of all our actions will be on preventing climate change as far as possible, rather than on adapting to those changes once we know that they are happening. I am glad to say that Ministers of all countries in the European regions reaffirmed their commitment to the precautionary principle in paragraph 44 of the draft ministerial declaration. I warmly welcome that endorsement of the principle, and hope that it leads to action to reduce risks to health where there is uncertainty. Furthermore, I also commend to the House the proposal for an international centre for emissions trading based in London as a way economically to drive down emissions.
I ask that every health authority, trust and primary care group should be requested, as part of an NHS-Kyoto CO2, reduction target, to bring forward its plans for sustainability. The conference is a great opportunity for the NHS to demonstrate what it has already done towards achieving the UK reduction target of 20 per cent.
I note the adoption of the charter for transport, environment and health. It is good that the WHO has at last placed firmly on the agenda transport and its impact on health. That will be particularly welcome to asthma sufferers throughout the world. The charter also takes a sensible approach to other aspects of transport, ranging from particulates to social isolation caused by lack of access to transport and the destruction of communities by traffic and noise.
About 120,000 people are killed in traffic accidents each year, and one in three of those are under the age of 25. There is also a wealth of evidence that the most disadvantaged suffer most. Those from the lowest social class are up to five times more likely to be the victims of traffic accidents and are far more likely to live in areas of higher traffic pollution levels, more traffic noise and busier, less sociable streets. Those World Health Organisation figures are surely unacceptable to all hon. Members.
The problems caused by traffic are only one part of the equation. There is an emerging link between lung cancer and exposure to traffic pollutants. It is estimated that 80,000 deaths among adults of over 35 years of age in urban areas of Europe are related to long-term exposure to transport air pollutants used in the ambient concentration of particulates as an indicator of exposure.
I look forward to pressure from the UK Government to move the charter from declaration status to legally binding convention status as soon as possible. Domestically, I hope that Ministers will shortly be able to fulfil their promise to announce a national target for traffic reduction, and that they will introduce policies to achieve that target.

301
Hon. Members will no doubt join me in welcoming the WHO's focus on child health at the conference. It is of great importance that the special vulnerability of children is recognised when safe exposure levels are set for toxic substances. The strong stance of the recently launched WHO initiative on tobacco is welcome, but the impact of tobacco advertising on child health needs to be addressed. The proposal in the draft declaration for annual monitoring and reporting on the state of child health in paragraph 50(F) is also worthy of note. It is to be hoped that Governments will include a focus on reproductive health as a key issue in protecting child health.
What is missing from the conference agenda this week? It is disappointing that there is to be no discussion about healthy food. I led a UK parliamentary delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union food summit conference last December at the Food and Agriculture Organisation in Rome. I was struck by the importance of the Codex Alimentarius jointly run for the past 50 years by the WHO and the FAO as a benchmark of the acceptability of novel foods.
Do the Government agree that that is important, and will they be represented at ministerial level at the Codex Alimentarius Commission to be held in Rome from 28 June to 3 July, when the new role of the World Trade Organisation in genetically modified foods will be debated? It is a pity that the conference this week did not reassert the primacy of the FAO and WHO in this field, or at least debate the issue.
The excellent Healthy Planet Forum, a 2,000-strong parallel conference taking place at Westminster central hall, is filling the gap by hosting an alternative food summit this Thursday. Can the Minister say whether any UK Government Minister has been able to clear his or her diary to speak at the food conference?
I am also disappointed that the issue of toxic chemicals, which appeared on the draft agenda, has been omitted from the final agenda and draft declaration. That is a critical issue for the environment. The recent scandal involving dioxins in Belgian food has served to emphasise public concern. The World Wide Fund for Nature is holding an expert panel discussion on toxic chemicals today at the NGO Healthy Planet Forum, when I understand that WWF will be making known new research in this area. I hope that the Minister will then be able to respond to the new research.
The Healthy Planet Forum will bring together NGOs, local authorities and interested people from almost all the 51 countries, and many others from outside Europe, to discuss the range of links between human health and the environment. The forum has been organised with the financial support of the UK Government, whom I thank, and the European Union and socially responsible businesses. I look forward to a lively and stimulating interaction between the civil society event and the ministerial event.
I strongly welcome the conference and its linkage of environment and health. I note that in the final sentences of its draft declaration, it mentions presenting the London declaration to be agreed this week to all member states in 2002 through the WHO and the committee on environmental policy of the UNECE. I recommend that the proposals should be presented to Earth Summit III, Rio plus 10, to be held also in 2002, so that all the nations of the earth can consider and take forward the excellent work being done this week.
12.14 am
The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing such an important and well-timed debate. The points that he raised span my ministerial responsibilities and those of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. I will ensure that the many points that my hon. Friend raised which are of specific relevance to my right hon. Friend are drawn to his attention.
The important challenge for the conference is linking the domestic and local impact of health and environmental issues with the need for global action. One reason why we are so glad that the WHO is a partner in that challenge is that the organisation has global reach. It has 191 member states and four key functions: giving worldwide guidance on health; setting global standards for health; co-operating with Governments to strengthen national health programmes; and developing and transferring appropriate health technology, information and standards.
The WHO's European region draws its membership from across the continent—from Greenland to the eastern limits of Russia, covering 51 countries and 870 million people. It therefore has a clear strategic overview of how the environment of the whole continent interacts with its population and is extremely well placed to co-ordinate work—on air pollution, for example—at a level that is simply not available to individual member states. The United Kingdom has long been a supporter of that approach to tackling trans-boundary issues.
I want to refer specifically to health inequality because it is linked directly to the disproportionate harm that can be done to people in deprived communities by environmental conditions. For example, the Department of Health's Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants published a report last year that looked at the relationship between air pollution and people's health—a link that is often described as causal in terms of ill-health.
The study concluded that air pollution hastened between 12,000 and 24,000 deaths in 1997—although, it was estimated, by only a matter of days in many cases—and brought on about the same number of hospitalisations. Most of those people were disadvantaged and vulnerable to begin with and their condition was clearly exacerbated by a polluted environment. That is an important issue on which we co-operate globally, because environmental pollution does not respect frontiers. We consider working with the WHO and member states across Europe to be the proper way to achieve progress.
Another example is water quality, which does not often affect us directly, but the central and eastern European countries suffer most acutely from lack of a decent water supply. Polluted and infected water is equally as hard to contain as poor air quality, and contaminated water brings contaminated food which may be exported across the continent. Again, we need to act internationally and together to safeguard everybody's environment and health.
The conference that begins in London tomorrow is the third such conference. The first was held in Frankfurt in 1989, and the product was the European charter that set a framework for future action and policy formulation in this area. The second was held in Helsinki in 1994, and members drew up a framework plan for improving environmental health.

303
The London conference is a high-profile event—the biggest political event on the environment and health ever held in Europe. Health, Environment and Transport Ministers and officials from the 51 member states of the WHO's European region will attend, together with delegates from other WHO regions, and the conference is a joint effort by the WHO and the European Union. That shared ownership, as it were, highlights the importance of the issues, and the need for an inter-country approach to tackling issues that know no national boundaries.
The conference will emphasise the importance of actions to improve health and the environment by promoting both national and international developments. Its theme is "action in partnership", and gearing that action towards mapping a strategic path towards an environment for sustainable health in the 21st century.
Conferences such as this are often criticised for excluding the people whom they affect, and for being packed with unresponsive bureaucrats inhabiting ivory towers. It is because I want us to overcome that that I so much welcome the parallel event involving nongovernmental organisations that I shall visit tomorrow. I shall address one of its sessions on Friday. We sought to involve non-governmental organisations in the drafting of the papers that we shall discuss, and have invited some of the keynote speakers. The neighbouring parallel conference, which will be attended by more than 1,000 people from across Europe, will reinforce the messages and the representative base of the 50 NGO delegates who will attend the ministerial conference.
Let me quickly go through the items on the agenda, and respond to some of the points made by my hon. Friend. Tomorrow the charter on transport, environment and health will be discussed. It will be signed by me, and by other United Kingdom Ministers: the Minister for the Environment and my noble Friend Lord Whitty, the Under-Secretary of State. The charter will cover integration of the environmental aspects of health in transport policies—including health within environmental impact assessments—transport-related health impacts, and the impact on vulnerable groups and sensitive areas. It will also establish guideline values for the health implications of transport activities, promote cycling and walking, and establish policy measures and instruments for sustainable and health-promoting transport.
Ms Joan Walley: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that part of that commitment will be followed by a commitment to the road traffic reduction legislation that is needed, with specific targets?
Ms Jowell: As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, that is being considered by Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's concern about the importance of traffic reduction measures is drawn to their attention; but I think that, overall, the transport charter will be seen as being complementary to the Government's integrated transport policy.
On Thursday, the protocol on water and health will be considered—a protocol to the 1992 convention on the protection and use of trans-boundary water courses and international lakes, developed jointly by the WHO and the
304
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Ministers will sign it at the London conference, and it will be legally binding. This is the first occasion on which the WHO has been involved in the development of such a legally binding protocol. It will address action on adequate drinking water and sanitation, safe water for agriculture, aquaculture and recreation, and systems for monitoring and managing risks to health. The UK Government, across Departments, have been closely involved in the negotiation of the protocol.
On Friday, we expect the London declaration, a strategic document signed on behalf of the conference by UK Ministers and structured around three themes: action, partnership and the 21st century. It will draw together key recommendations for further action from the other conference documents. It will consider the WHO's role in working with member states on health and the environment, and the role of NGOs and other enterprises.
Although those are the major strategic issues to be considered, as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) has said, there are others, including the important issue of children's health and the environment, with the focus, which I particularly welcome, on the impact of environmental tobacco smoke. Progress on the implementation of national environmental health action plans will be considered. The updated report will be published shortly. I hope that he will recognise at that time that substantial progress has been achieved.
There will be an overview of local Agenda 21 projects to improve environmental health. Measures to achieve greater public participation in tackling those issues, ways of disseminating best practice in safe and healthy work places, and the effects of climate change on human health will be considered. I take my hon. Friend's point that it is important that issues in relation to sustainability and the national health service are also addressed. As a Green Minister in the Department of Health, I can assure him that we take the issues of sustainability extremely seriously.
The problem is that, at such an event, there is never time to do justice to all the issues that people want to raise and to discuss, but I hope that the range of agenda issues that will be addressed in the main conference and in the NGOs conference will stimulate debate, begin to provide some solutions and begin to establish a clear set of actions that will follow.
Mr. Colman: Would the Minister like to comment on the alternative healthy food summit, which is coming up on Thursday, and whether a Minister could be there on the platform alongside the many eminent people who are coining from throughout Europe to discuss that issue?
Ms Jowell: I understand that it is not possible for a Minister to attend the summit, but I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that I will ensure that I and the Minister with responsibility for food safety receive a report of those discussions and consider their implications for food policy in England.
By the end of the week, we will have signed a legally binding protocol on water and health, which will commit each Government to publish targets for achieving safe drinking water, adequate sanitation and proper protection of other aspects of water that impinge on people's health. In particular, each Government will have to draw up plans

305
on how they intend to attain those targets and to monitor their progress towards them. In effect, the existing high standards that we enjoy in the UK and the rest of the European Union will be rolled out throughout the continent. That is the intention.
We will also have signed a charter on transport and health that recognises the need for sustainable policies to reduce the harmful effects that transport can have on people's health and their environment. That involves air, soil, water pollution, accidents, noise and greenhouse gas emissions. We want to encourage a healthier, more physically active approach to transport.
306
We will work with our European partners to build on the lessons that we have learned from our integrated transport strategy.
All those represent significant gains for the people of Europe. We are determined that the big statements and big promises of an important inter-ministerial conference are translated into practical benefits for the local environment in this country and improvements in people's health.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Kosovo
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost to public funds of the operation in Kosovo since the beginning of military action. [86744]

  Minister

  Team led by

  Date

  Location

  Minister (Armed Forces)

  John Hamre

  1 March 1999

  Washington

  Secretary of State

  William Cohen

  7 April 1999

  Brussels

  Secretary of State

  William Cohen

  17 April 1999

  Freeport, Maine

  Minister (Defence Procurement)

  John Hamre

  17 May 1999

  London

  Full records of the US officials present at these meetings are not kept.

  As well as these scheduled bilateral meetings, we have had exchanges and contacts at other meetings and conferences, including at the NATO Washington Summit.

  Defence Estates
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for Defence Estates for 1999–2000. [87252]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following key targets have been set for Defence Estates 1999–2000:

  Key Target 1:

  To demonstrate an improvement of 10 per cent. in terms of the satisfaction of customer requirements.

  Key Target 2:

  To achieve net disposal receipts of …235 million.

  Key Target 3:

  To let three pilot Prime construction procurement Contracts.

  Key Target 4:

  To publish a strategy for the management of the Defence Estate.

  Airborne Stand-off Radar
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in determining the outcome of the competition for the Airborne Stand-off Radar. [87314]

  Mr. George Robertson
  A consortium led by Raytheon Systems Ltd. has been chosen as the preferred bidder for the development, production and in-service support of ASTOR, the Airborne Stand-Off Radar system. The consortium includes Short Brothers, Motorola UK Ltd, GEC Marconi Avionics and Marshall SV.
  66
  Mr. George Robertson
  As at the end of May, some £43 million of additional expenditure has fallen to my Department as a direct consequence of the UK's military response to the Kosovo crisis. This figure does not include the costs of replenishing stocks of expended ordnance.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times Ministers in his Department have met members and officials of the United States Government since 1 March; and if he will list the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved on each occasion, and the names of the members and officials of the United States Government at each meeting. [86286]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Since 1 March 1999, MOD Ministers have had scheduled bilateral meetings with our US counterparts, who are normally accompanied by officials, on the following occasions:

  ASTOR is a joint Army and RAF requirement for a ground-surveillance radar, expected to enter service in 2005. It will provide a substantial enhancement of military capability, using highly effective new radar systems installed on five fixed-wing aircraft to provide a high degree of resolution over a wide area of coverage. It can be used to monitor areas of interest from a stand-off position, in peace and in crisis, and could be deployed at short notice in support of United Kingdom, NATO or United Nations operations. The ASTOR Main Operating Base will be located at RAF Waddington.

  ASTOR will provide UK industry with valuable, high-technology work. The project management team will be located in the United Kingdom, and the prime contractor will place work representing 100 per cent. of the contract value with UK firms. The project will be managed by the Defence Procurement Agency under Smart Procurement principles, with an Integrated Project Team involving representatives from industry and the Services. The likely value of the contract is about £800 million.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in his Department and its associated bodies and agencies have benefited from the introduction of a national minimum wage. [86089]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No one in the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Northern Ireland Office, and their associated bodies and agencies, has benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage.
  67
  All staff in the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Northern Ireland Office and their associated bodies and agencies, who are covered by the terms of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 have been paid more than £3.60 per hour since 1 April 1998.

  Reconciliation (Funding)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she has taken to examine the case for enhanced financial assistance for the work of reconciliation as agreed in the Belfast Agreement; what consultations have been undertaken with the Irish Government; and if she will make a statement. [86149]

  Mr. McFall
  Financial allocations for all areas of public expenditure were considered in the context of the Comprehensive Spending Review. The acknowledgement of work to develop reconciliation and mutual understanding in the Good Friday Agreement was instrumental in maintaining the community relations budget at the present level of over £9 million per annum. This was not identified in the Good Friday Agreement as a potential area for enhanced North/South co-operation and implementation, and there have been no consultations with the Irish Government consequent on the Agreement. There are existing mechanisms for funding reconciliation work on a cross-border basis under the European Union Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation and International Fund for Ireland programmes.

  School Enrolments
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the enrolment at Saintfield High School in each of the three most recent years; how many applicants for admission in each of these years were refused; and what proposals there are for increasing the provision of secondary education in Saintfield. [86313]

  Mr. McFall
  The enrolment at Saintfield High School has been 326, 339 and 341 respectively in the 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 schools years. The number of pupils refused admission to Year 8 in each of these years was 2, 6 and 55 respectively. It is a matter for the South-Eastern Education and Library Board in the first instance to ensure that there are sufficient school places in its area.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the enrolment of pupils in each of the three most recent years at(a) Killinchy Primary School, (b) Killyleagh Primary School, (c) Derryboy Primary School and (d) the primary school in Saintfield. [86314]

  Mr. McFall
  The information requested is given in the following table. There are three primary schools in the general Saintfield area, and all three are shown.

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Killinchy Primary School

  235

  215

  213

  Killyleagh Primary School

  136

  127

  111

  Derryboy Primary School

  81

  77

  73

  Academy Primary School

  329

  325

  336

  Ballycloughan Primary School

  84

  79

  67

  St. Mary's Primary School

  60

  65

  63

  School Applications
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils at Killyleagh Primary School in their transfer procedures 1999 expressed a preference for Down High School; how many of these pupils have been accepted into Down High School; what were the grades of those pupils who were refused places in Down High School; and if she will make a statement. [86311]

  Mr. McFall
  In this year's transfer cohort, 6 pupils from Killyleagh primary School expressed a preference for Down High School and 5 obtained places. The unsuccessful applicant obtained a Grade C2.

  The Department of Education approved an additional 18 places for September 1999 admissions to Down High School. The number of pupils to be admitted to a school is necessarily limited by the school's physical capacity and no grade guarantees a place at any school.

  These points are made clear to the parents of pupils transferring from primary schools.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils at Derryboy Primary School in their transfer procedures 1999 expressed a preference for Saintfield High School; how many of these pupils have been accepted into Saintfield High School; what were the grades of those applicants who were refused places in Saintfield High School; and if she will make a statement. [86310]

  Mr. McFall
  In this year's transfer cohort, 16 pupils from Derryboy Primary School expressed a preference for Saintfield High School and 7 obtained places. Of the remaining 9, 4 did not reach Saintfield High School because they obtained a place in their first preference schools. Non-grammar secondary schools cannot consider the Transfer Procedure Test Grade of applicants in deciding admissions.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils at Killinchy Primary School in their transfer procedures 1999 expressed a preference for(a) Down High School and (b) Down Academy; how many of these pupils were accepted into each of these schools; what were the grades of those applicants who were refused places at each of these schools; and if she will make a statement. [86309]

  Mr. McFall
  In this year's transfer cohort:

  (a) 15 pupils from Killinchy Primary School expressed a preference for Down High School and 7 obtained places. Of the remaining 8, 4 were Grade B1 and 2 were Grade B2 and 2 preferences were not received by Down High School, because the pupils obtained places in their first preference schools.

  (b) 13 pupils expressed a preference for Down Academy and 5 obtained places. Of the remaining 8, 5 did not reach Down Academy because they obtained places in their first preference schools. Transfer Procedure tests grades may not be taken into account in admissions decisions for non-grammar secondary schools.

  The Department of Education approved an additional 18 places for September 1999 admissions to Down High School. The number of pupils to be admitted to a school is necessarily limited by the school's physical capacity and no grade guarantees a place at any schools.
  69
  These points are made clear to parents of pupils transferring from primary schools.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times Ministers in her Department held meetings with Ministers and officials of

  Dates

  Location

  Minister

  US Representative

  16 March 1998

  Washington

  Dr. Mowlam

  Mr. J. Lyons Special Adviser to President Clinton and Secretary of State for Economic Initiatives in Ireland

  The hon. S. Berger Special Assistant to President for National Affairs, Mr. J. Steinberg, Deputy National Security Adviser, Mr. L. Butler, Director for European Affairs and Mr. D. Bandler, Senior Director European and Canadian Affairs

  Ms M. Albright, US Secretary of State, State Department, the hon. T. Pickering, Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ms E. Shocas, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European Affairs, Mr. J. Gadsden, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European Affairs and Canadian Affairs, Mr. J. O'Brien, Special Adviser to Secretary of State and Ambassador W. Sherman

  17 March 1999

  President Clinton and The First lady

  Water Service
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what key performance targets have been set for the Water Service in 1999–2000. [87247]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  For 1999–2000, the following key performance targets have been set for the Water Service:

  1. To achieve 98.2 per cent. compliance with drinking water standards set in the Water Quality Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1994.

  2. To achieve 75 per cent. compliance with the wastewater treatment works discharge standards set by the Environment and Heritage Service.

  3. To ensure that fewer than 0.8 per cent. of properties experience unplanned interruptions to water supplies lasting greater than 12 hours.

  4. To issue substantive replies to 90 per cent. of written complaints within 15 working days of receipt.

  5. To deliver water at a unit cost of 67 pence per cubic metre.

  6. To treat wastewater at a unit cost of 60 pence per cubic metre.

  7. To maintain expenditure within cash limits and to approved budget plans.

  8. To achieve efficiency gains of 3 per cent. on running costs expenditure.

  The targets are included in the Water Service's 1999–2000 Business Plan, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  These targets are subject to endorsement or amendment by local Ministers in the event of the Northern Ireland Assembly being established.

  Training and Employment Agency
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what targets have been set for the Training and Employment Agency for Northern Ireland for the period 1999–2000. [87249]
  70
  the US Government between 1 January and 1 June 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved at each meeting, and the US representatives at each meeting. [86289]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The following meetings with members and officials of the US Administration took place during the period 1 January to 1 June 1998:

  Mr. McFall
  The following targets have been set for the Agency:

  1. To ensure that those who began Jobskills training in 1997–98 will achieve at least a 65 per cent. qualification success rate at NVQ Level 2 or above.

  2. To have at least 50 per cent. of trainees who commenced a Jobskills traineeship in 1997–98 progressing to employment on leaving the programme.

  3. To pilot an Individual Learning Accounts system and contribute to the creation of 500 accounts, by March 2000.

  4. CDP projects to achieve 80 per cent. of their agreed productivity targets.

  5. To assist 3,000 16–24 New Deal participants to find work.

  6. To contract with suitable organisations for the delivery of the new Worktrack programme by 31 May 1999.

  7. To increase the number of NI organisations achieving Investors in People (IiP) standard from 171 to 230.

  8. 50 per cent. of unemployed people placed into jobs to be from TSN areas.

  9. To achieve a score in the range of 350–400 points against the Business Excellence Model in an entry for the Northern Ireland Quality Awards in September 1999.

  These Key Targets will be subject to consideration and possible amendment by the relevant Assembly Minister when the Assembly is established.

  Probation Services
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she has reviewed the arrangements for the delivery of probation services in Northern Ireland. [87250]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  My Department has completed a quinquennial review of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI), including a prior options study of all its functions. I have accepted the main recommendation from the report of the study that PBNI should continue as a non-departmental public body (NDPB). A Management Statement has been prepared for PBNI which will operate
  71
  from 1 April 1999. I have, therefore, confirmed NDPB arrangements for PBNI for a period of three years from that date, subject to the findings and outcome of the Criminal Justice Review.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Bug
  Helen Jones
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her answer of 18 May 1999,Official Report, column 285, when she will publish the latest results of the market research tracking public perception of the millennium bug. [87248]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have today placed copies of the Executive Summaries of the April and May tracking research in the Libraries of the House. The results are broadly consistent with those for March, showing that concern among the public on this issue is still low.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the President of the Council how many copies of the public information booklet, "The Millennium Bug-Facts not Fiction", have been produced; and at what cost. [87111]

  Mrs. Beckett
  31 million copies of the booklet have been produced so far; at a cost of just over £1.87 million.

PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to require Government Departments and agencies to discontinue the practice of referring to date as postmark and to date their correspondence. [86873]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 June 1999]All correspondence from Government Departments and agencies should be clearly dated. The Cabinet Office will be issuing revised guidance on correspondence handling later this year to reinforce this message.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kosovo (Refugees)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what preparations her Department has made for winter accommodation for Kosovar refugees; and what discussions it has held with the refugees on this matter. [86193]

  Clare Short
  We have urged the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, as the lead humanitarian agency in the region, to co-ordinate the development of a comprehensive approach for Kosovars during the winter. The strategy for shelter provision will include a combination of methods—hard shelter, winterised tents and repair and rehabilitation of existing structures.

  In a number of well-established camps and collective centres, elected refugee representatives are feeding information to camp managers, and in turn to agencies, international organisations and donors, about the
  72
  problems and needs of the refugee population. Planning for winter is among the topics of discussion between these parties.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress her Department has made in reviewing the implications of genetically modified organisms for poorer farmers in developing countries since her answer of 11 November 1998,Official Report, columns 206–07. [86774]

  Clare Short
  The findings of this initial review are summarised in the "Background Briefing: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and developing countries", which we published in May 1999. The paper sets out our approach to GMOs and developing countries and identifies further actions which we are undertaking. I will send a copy to the hon. Member and place copies in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposals there are to amend her Department's departmental expenditure limits for 1999–2000. [87245]

  Clare Short
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class VIII, Vote 1, Department for International Development: International Development, the Department expenditure limit for 1999–2000 will be increased by £10,000,000 from £1,794,764,000 to £1,804,764,000. The increase is the net effect of additional humanitarian assistance to Kosovo.

  The increase will be a charge on the DEL reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

WALES

  A40 (Dualling)
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the results of the study which he undertook on dualling the A40 to St. Clears; and if he will place a copy of the study in the Library. [85661]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The results of the study indicate that although there would be significant benefits to be gained from investments in public transport options, there would still remain the need to provide good road infrastructure.

  It will now be for the Assembly to decide what resources to devote to new trunk road schemes and to what standards they should be built.

  Poll Tax Debts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the level of poll tax debts which remain unpaid; and if he will make a statement. [86346]
  73
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information provided on local authority returns indicate that around £6.5 million of community charge arrears were still outstanding at 31 March 1999.

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

  Coal Mines
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many coal mines there are in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [86339]

  Mr. Hain
  There are currently 11 underground and eight opencast licensed coal mines in Wales.

  Social Inclusion
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he has put in place to enhance social inclusion; and if he will make a statement. [86338]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, 31 March 1999,Official Report, column 727–29.

  Copies of the document "Building an Inclusive Wales: Tackling the Social Exclusion Agenda" were placed in the Libraries of the House.

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

  Medium Secure Units
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the medium secure units in operation in Wales and the date when each was commissioned. [87043]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  There are currently three medium secure units in operation in Wales. These are Ty Llywellyn in Llanfairfechan completed in 1998, Caswell Clinic in Bridgend completed in 1992 and the privately run Llanarth Court in Raglan also completed in 1992.

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

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions patients have absconded from medium secure units in Wales in the last three years, and from which units; and on how many of those occasions(a) it was assessed that there was a risk to the public and (b) members of the public were assaulted or threatened. [87040]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  There are three medium secure facilities in Wales. Figures for escapes from the hospital grounds over the last three years are as follows:

  Number of escapes

  Ty Llywellyn, North Wales

  1

  Caswell Clinic, Bridgend

  3

  Llanarth Court, Raglan

  0

  At no time were any of the patients assessed as a danger to the public nor were any members of the public assaulted
  74
  or threatened. In addition to these escapes, Caswell had 15 patients who breached parole arrangements over the same period and Llanarth Court had 26.

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

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Mileage Claims
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Council if she will estimate the number of additional hours per month required to complete the newly designed C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5 forms; how many additional staff are employed by the Fees Office to handle these claims; and if she will estimate the average number of hours(a) hon. Members will spend annually, recording and completing motor mileage claims and (b) the Fees Office takes to check this information. [86884]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I am afraid that it is not possible for me to estimate the hours required by Members to complete the Fees Office claim forms and their motor mileage claims. As I am sure the hon. Member will understand, Members have differing claim and travel patterns and, therefore, will take different amounts of time to complete the relevant forms. The new claim forms were designed to make completion easier for Members. I understand that the Fees Office has had a number of favourable comments about them from Members.

  No additional staff were engaged to handle the revised claim forms. Staff employed by the Fees Office in checking motor mileage claims also have other duties and it is not possible accurately to apportion the time spent on each specific area of work.

  Line of Route
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, what has been the cost to date of the consultants' study of the proposal to re-open the line of route during the summer adjournment; and whether their contract has been re-negotiated. [86683]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 14 June 1999]The costs of the study to date have been shared between both Houses. The original contract up to April 1999 was suspended in the light of the decision to defer the summer opening until 2000. A new contract was re-negotiated to cover the period up to October 1999, but this is being reviewed as a result of the House's decision on 26 May that other options should be examined. I have asked the Serjeant at Arms to write to the hon. Member with details.

  Debate Extracts
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chairman of Broadcasting Committee if his Committee will investigate the feasibility of allowing hon. Members to obtain audio or video clips from debates in a digital format. [86399]

  Mr. Eric Clarke
  The Parliamentary Recording Unit supplies sound and video tapes to hon. Members. Audio tapes can be supplied in DAT, or digital format if requested. However, video tapes are not yet available in digital format since all recordings are still analogue. The
  75
  first digital signals will originate from the Committee Rooms in Portcullis House and, from autumn 2000, digital and analogue video tapes will be available on request.

TREASURY

  Financial Advice (VAT)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will remove VAT on fee-based financial advice. [86935]

  Ms Hewitt
  No. VAT liability depends upon what service is provided and whether it is paid for. Financial advice for which a charge is made is liable to VAT at the standard rate. This is a requirement of European law.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the latest agenda of the ECOFIN meeting of 14 June, prior to the meeting. [86832]

  Ms Hewitt
  There is no meeting of ECOFIN today. The next meeting is scheduled for 12 July. The agenda will be made available to the Scrutiny Committees when determined by Coreper, approximately one week before the meeting. Copies of the agenda will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much capital gains tax relating to the sale of exploration licences was paid by the offshore oil and gas industry in each of the last three years; and what is the forecast figure for the current financial year. [86858]

  Mrs. Roche
  The corporation tax liability of oil and gas companies arising from their capital gains on the sale of exploration and production licences averaged £25 million a year in the period 1995–96 to 1997–98 and is expected to be about £15 million for the current year.

  Charities (Tax Concessions)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated annual cost to his Department of all tax concessions to charities(a) as a total and (b) as a percentage of the total registered turnover of the charitable sector. [86689]

  Ms Hewitt
  (a) The annual cost of all tax reliefs for charities is estimated at over £2 billion. This comprises around £1.2 billion of relief from direct tax, about £0.2 billion in VAT reliefs and £0.6 billion in business rate relief.

  (b) The total turnover of the charitable sector is not known. The Charity Commission's Register showed at the end of March 1999 that the total annual income of all registered charities in England and Wales was about £21 billion. This does not cover charities in Scotland and Northern Ireland, nor does it include non-registered charities.

  Centre for European Reform
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the total funds available from the European Community in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999 to date to the Centre for European Reform. [86644]

  Ms Quin
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are not aware of any funds being made available from the European Community to the Centre for European Reform in 1998 or 1999. The relevant budget lines—established by the Council and the European Parliament—are administered by the Commission headquarters in Brussels.

  "Britain in Europe"
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what European Communities moneys have been provided to the "Britain in Europe" organisation in each of the last three years. [86453]

  Ms Quin
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are not aware of any funds being made available from the European Community to the "Britain in Europe" organisation in the last three years. The relevant budget lines—established by the Council and the European Parliament—are administered by the Commission headquarters in Brussels.

  European Movement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what funds were made available from the European Communities in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999 to date to the European Movement; and for what purposes. [86455]

  Ms Quin
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are not aware of any funds being made available from the European Community to the European Movement in 1998 or 1999. The relevant budget lines—established by the Council and the European Parliament—are administered by the Commission headquarters in Brussels.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Departmental Accommodation
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the advantages which the new offices of his Department have over those in Marsham Street. [85792]

  Mr. Meale
  I never had the joy of working in 2 Marsham Street. Staff now have the advantage of a modern working environment and better team working as a result.

  National Rail Summit
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to convene a further National Rail Summit. [85796]
  77
  Mrs. Liddell
  The next National Rail Summit will be held in Spring 2000. The Summit will be used to review progress and maintain the momentum created by the Summit on 25 February.

  Ethical Standards (Local Government)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to introduce proposals to implement new ethical standards in local government. [85797]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have recently consulted on draft legislation, the Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill, putting in place a new ethical framework for local government. The draft Bill is also being considered by a Joint Committee that is due to report before the summer recess. We will be considering any issues raised during this scrutiny process with the aim of introducing new legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Rural Train Services
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to safeguard rural train services. [85798]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Train operators are required to provide the minimum service level set out in the Passenger Service Requirement. Where services are heavily dependent on subsidy, for example in rural areas, PSRs reflect closely the level of services operated by British Rail at the time of franchising.

  Proportional Representation (Local Government)
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the benefits of introducing proportional representation for local government elections in England. [85800]

  Ms Armstrong
  Other than our proposals in the paper, "Local leadership, local choice" (Cm 4298, March 1999) for the introduction of the Supplementary Vote system for the election of directly elected mayors, we do not intend now to make any assessment of local government voting systems for England.

  Household Projection Figures (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the new sub-regional household projection figures for Gloucestershire, with particular reference to the figure contained in the county's structure plan. [85801]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Secretary of State has made the 1996-based household projections available to the regional planning bodies to assist them with the preparation of regional planning guidance. The House would not expect me to comment on the Gloucestershire Structure Plan because of the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role in planning matters.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what actions he intends to take in order to improve the competitiveness of regional airports. [85802]

  Mrs. Liddell
  We have freed four major regional airports from borrowing controls; we have liberalised international access to regional airports; and we are conducting a series of studies of the opportunities for the development of the regional airports.

  Local Government Settlement (Southend)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received on the current local government settlement for Southend. [85803]

  Ms Armstrong
  Following approval by this House of the Local Government Finance Settlement for 1999–2000, we have received three letters about the settlement for Southend on Sea Borough Council.

  A14 Traffic Flow Projections
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the revised traffic flow projections on the A14 (Al-M1 link road) for the years 1999 to 2007. [85804]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Traffic flow projections for the A14 (A1-M1 link road) were produced during the 1980's planning stages of the road. Whilst those original forecasts would not normally be revised as a matter of course, our planned multi-modal study for London-South midlands, due to start next year, will include this section of the A14 and consider projected traffic flows on it.

  Passenger Services (Freight Network)
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage rail operators to provide new passenger services on under-utilised sections of the freight network. [85805]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Director of Rail Passenger Franchising recently published Bidding Guidance for the Rail Passenger Partnership scheme announced in the Government's Integrated Transport White Paper. The scheme will encourage innovative new rail passenger services at the local and regional level.

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the bodies with which he has held consultations on the review of local government finance; and if he will make a statement. [85806]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Local Government Association, including representatives from the various Treasurers' societies, and the Association of London Government have both been closely involved in discussions on the review of revenue grant distribution since the review began earlier this year.

  Radioactive Material Transport
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the survey of radioactive material transport packages which he commissioned from Nukem Nuclear Ltd. [85807]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The survey commissioned by my right hon. Friend the former Minister for Transport (Dr. Reid), has been completed and the report has been made freely available. The survey indicates that, while low levels of contamination exists on the surface of fuel flasks, there is no evidence of the high levels of contamination found elsewhere in Europe and there is no significant hazard presented to public safety by the levels of contamination found. Copies of the report will be placed in the Commons Library.

  North-west Development Agency
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he next intends to meet members of the North-west development agency to discuss their use of public money. [85808]

  Mr. Caborn
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, nor I have any plans at present to meet members of the North-west Development Agency. However, I hold regular meetings with the chairmen of the regional development agencies to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the principles and objectives underlying the review of standard spending assessments; and if he will make a statement. [85809]

  Ms Armstrong
  The objectives of the current review of revenue grant distribution are to investigate thoroughly whether there is a better way of determining the distribution of revenue support grant which is simpler, more stable, more robust and fairer than the present arrangements for SSAs. These objectives were set out in last year's White Paper, "Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People".

  Fishing Vessel Accidents
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions pursuant to his answer of 9 February 1999,Official Report, column 148, on the consultation document "Fishing Vessel Accidents and the Recovery of Those Lost at Sea", when he expects to publish his response to the consultation exercise. [85810]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Good progress is being made on many of the issues raised in the consultation paper. The analysis of responses was discussed by the Fishing Industry Safety Group on 22 April. Members of the Group were invited to submit comments by 31 May and the Government will issue their response soon.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors underlie the use of tonnes of carbon as a measure for greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. [85811]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under international guidelines, greenhouse gas emissions are measured in terms of their global warming potential. Conversion to a common unit of measurement (whether in tonnes of CO2 equivalent or tonnes of carbon equivalent) allows comparisons to be made between countries, between various policies and measures and between different greenhouse gases.

  Road Taxes (London)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the proposed road taxes for London on the use of private cars; and if he will make a statement. [85813]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Research undertaken by my Department and other organisations has shown that new charges could help to tackle London's congestion problems and generate a revenue stream for transport improvements. A further study is currently looking at how the new charging powers contained in the Greater London Authority Bill could be used in London. It will be for London's Mayor and boroughs to decide whether to introduce any charging scheme in London.

  Integrated Transport Strategy
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he will ensure that local transport plans meet the quality standards set out in the integrated transport strategy. [85814]

  Mrs. Liddell
  We have produced comprehensive guidance for local authorities, setting down the criteria by which we will judge local transport plans. Officials, particularly in the Government Offices, are working closely with local authorities to help them deliver the best quality local transport plans that they can.

  Council Tax (Shropshire)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with Shropshire county council regarding council tax. [85815]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Secretary of State received representations from Shropshire county council as part of the 1999–2000 local government finance settlement consultation process. Shropshire county council is also one of the 12 authorities with the largest increases in budget and council tax which we have called in to discuss their increases and put on warning for next year. I shall be meeting them on 24 June.

  London Underground
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the income to be derived by London Transport
  81
  from the Public-Private Partnership leases on London Underground's infrastructure in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03. [85816]

  Mrs. Liddell
  It is not the intention of the Public/Private Partnership to derive income for London Transport through leasing charges. The leasing of the infrastructure to the private sector is the legal mechanism necessary to allow private sector partners to undertake and finance the necessary maintenance, renewal and upgrade works to the system.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with Railtrack plc on the possibility of granting them a public-private partnership of the whole London Underground system; and if he will make a statement. [86640]

  Mr. Prescott
  I announced to the House earlier this afternoon,Official Report, columns 155–67, that I have agreed with London Transport that they should not hold a PPP competition for London Underground's sub-surface lines at present. This is to allow London Transport to explore with Railtrack whether there is a way of linking the national rail network to the sub-surface lines in a PPP, under which Railtrack would undertake and finance the maintenance and upgrading of the subsurface lines for London Underground, under contract to London Underground, and Railtrack would build links between the Underground and the national rail network, to allow new services for passengers running into the heart of London.

  I also announced that London Transport is today inviting companies to pre-qualify as bidders to invest in the Underground through the Underground's two deep-tube infrastructure contracts. Railtrack have themselves confirmed that they will not be seeking to pre-qualify for the two deep-tube PPP competitions.

  I met Gerald Corbett, Chief Executive of Railtrack, this morning, to discuss the work involved. Prior to this, my officials held a number of working level meetings with Railtrack.

  Energy Reduction Plans
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what time

  1999

  Location

  DETR Minister

  US Counterpart

  30 January

  London

  John Prescott

  A1 Gore, US Vice President

  26 March

  London

  John Prescott

  Rodney Slater, Secretary of Transportation

  John Reid

  26–28 March

  Schwerin, Germany

  John Prescott

  Carol Browner, Administrator, Environment Protection Agency

  Michael Meacher

  20 April

  Washington

  John Prescott

  Carol Browner, Administrator, Environment Protection Agency

  Andrew Cuomo, Secretary Department of Housing and Urban Development

  Rodney Slater, Secretary of Transportation

  22 April

  New York

  Michael Meacher

  Frank Loy, US State Department

  14 June

  London

  John Prescott

  Frank Loy, US State Department

  Michael Meacher

  82
  scale he set for agreeing energy reduction plans with major energy user industries; and if he will make a statement. [85817]

  Mr. Meale
  The Chancellor has asked energy intensive sectors of industry to make proposals for targets to improve efficiency and reduce emissions by October. DETR is leading the negotiations with the sectors concerned.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent steps he has taken to secure an improvement in rail services. [85818]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The National Rail Summit on 25 February produced a package of measures to tackle medium to long-term problems, including the creation of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority under the Chairmanship of Sir Alastair Morton. The Deputy Prime Minister has also recently appointed a new Franchising Director and a new Rail Regulator.

  Scheduled Flights (Journey Times)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the increase in(a) fuel burn and (b) emissions as a result of the increased times taken on scheduled flights to Scotland. [85872]

  Mrs. Liddell
  We have not assessed whether the slight increases in some scheduled journey times reflect delays on the ground or in the air. That information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Without it, no estimate of any increase in fuel burn or emissions could be made.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many times Ministers in his Department have met their counterparts in the United States Government since 30 January 1999; and if he will list the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved on each occasion, and the name of the US counterpart at each meeting. [86292]

  Mr. Prescott
  The information for DETR is as follows:

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the level of UK carbon dioxide emissions in each year from 1990 to date. [86663]

  Mr. Meale
  The following table gives estimates of carbon dioxide emissions for each year from 1990 to 1998 from the UK's greenhouse gas emissions inventory. The 1998 data are provisional. Emissions in 1998 are provisionally estimated to be 7 per cent. lower than in 1990, due mainly to the switch from coal to gas in electricity generation, and increased efficiency of nuclear power stations.

  Year

  Emissions (million tonnes of carbon)

  1990

  168

  1991

  169

  1992

  165

  1993

  161

  1994

  159

  1995

  157

  1996

  162

  1997

  155

  1998

  1156

  1Provisional

  Council Tax
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it a criminal offence to claim falsely the single person's discount for the council tax; and if he will make a statement. [86381]

  Mr. Meale
  A 25 per cent. discount applies where a dwelling is the sole or main residence of one person, or where all but one resident is disregarded for the purpose of a discount. We do not have any plans to make it a criminal offence to make an invalid claim for the 25 per cent. discount. However, local authorities already have powers to impose a penalty of £50, without having to go to the Courts, if a person receiving a discount fails to notify the authority that he is no longer (or never was) eligible for it.

  Brownfield Sites
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish statistics on the proportion of new development on brownfield sites; and if he will make a statement. [86356]

  Mr. Caborn
  Estimates of the proportion of new development on previously developed land are published annually in the statistical Bulletin series "Land Use Change in England". The latest results were published in December 1998 in issue no 13, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. The next edition should be published in September 1999.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what 84
  assessment he has made of the trend in the number of abandoned vehicles over the last two years; and if he will make a statement; [86865]

  (2) what plans he has to help local authorities deal with an increase in abandoned vehicles resulting from the fall in the price of scrap metal. [86866]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department does not monitor the number of abandoned vehicles collected from the public highway by local authorities. There is no requirement for local authorities or the police to provide the Secretary of State with information in respect of the abandoned vehicles which they have dealt with.

  The number of abandoned vehicles was not an issue raised with this Department by the Local Government Association during discussions on the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), which provided substantial additional provision for local authorities over the three year period covered by the CSR.

  Nuisance Hedges
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make an announcement on plans to introduce legislation to control(a) leylandii and (b) other trees and bushes on private property which cause nuisance; and if he will make a statement. [86922]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) on 17 November 1998,Official Report, column 473.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the report of the Departmental Working Group on nuisance caused by hedges; and if he will make a statement. [86777]

  Mr. Meale
  The voluntary code of practice on the information to be provided on the sale of hedging plants, drawn up the Leylandii Working Group, is being launched to the horticultural and landscape industry today. Copies have been placed in the Library; otherwise, the position remains as set out in my reply to the hon. Member on 19 March 1999,Official Report, column 881.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to reform the area cost adjustment. [85812]

  Mr. Meale
  We shall be examining possible improvements to the area cost adjustment as part of the Review of Revenue Grant Distribution.

  Road Traffic
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to set targets in respect of his proposals to reduce road traffic levels; and if he will make a statement. [86433]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are already implementing policies to tackle road traffic as a vital part of our integrated transport strategy set out in last year's White Paper. We already have a number of international and national targets for protecting the environment and
  85
  promoting more sustainable transport, and will ask the Commission for Integrated Transport, which will be starting work shortly, to advise us on further targets. We remain committed to publishing our first report under the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998, on the issue of whether to set a national traffic reduction target, by the end of this year.

  Train Overcrowding
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for defining overcrowding on trains. [86691]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is not proposed to change the current definition of overcrowding. For services into London and also some commuter services into other large cities, overcrowding is defined in franchise agreements in terms of passengers in excess of capacity. Trains have a nominal capacity (the number of standard class seats for journeys of more than 20 minutes; plus, for journeys of less than 20 minutes, an allowance of 0.55 sq metres of floor space per standing passenger) which should not be exceeded by more than 3 per cent. in the morning and evening peaks combined. This is the general definition of overcrowding. It is broadly comparable with that formerly used by British Rail. The current practice of systematically controlling overcrowding only on commuter services also reflects previous British Rail practice.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had recently with(a) the train operating companies, (b) rail users and (c) trade unions on the subject of overcrowded trains. [86692]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The problem of overcrowding on trains was discussed at the National Rail Summit on 25 February which was attended by train operating companies, rail users and trade unions.

  Bus Service
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with bus operators on the quality of their services. [85799]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  DETR Ministers and officials are in frequent contact with bus operators on a wide range of issues as the policies for improving bus services announced in last year's Transport White Paper are taken forward. Improving the quality of service is prominent among the issues considered in these discussions.

  National Bus Company (Pensions)
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the position reached in respect of the pensions scheme of the former National Bus Company. [87246]

  Mr. Prescott
  I am pleased to be able to announce substantial progress in the settlement of the long running dispute concerning the payment to the Government in 1990 of surpluses held in the two National Bus Company pensions funds. At the first opportunity following full consideration of all the relevant legal and other issues,86
  I instructed the Department's lawyers to open discussions with the pension trustees with a view to obtaining a just and equitable out of court settlement as soon as possible.

  Those discussions have been successful. Offers have been made which the trustees have indicated they intend to recommend as acceptable. An application will be made to the Court for its approval of the proposed settlement terms as soon as possible following all proper consultation with the beneficiaries.

  The proposed settlement involves payment to the trustees of £300 million in respect of the BEST scheme and of £55.77 million in respect of the NBPF scheme. I am satisfied that this is a just and reasonable settlement for all concerned.

  The details of the distribution of the settlement sum to individuals will be a matter for the trustees to decide and carry forward.

  Public Safety Zone Policy
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what further decisions he has reached on Public Safety Zone Policy and administration since the announcement on 31 July 1998. [87251]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since my announcement we have been developing our proposals on two fronts, relating to the definition of new Public Safety Zone boundaries and to the preparation of guidance to local planning authorities for use in considering planning applications. Work is well in hand on the redefinition of the existing Public Safety Zones. We shall notify the local planning authorities and airports concerned of the grid co-ordinates of the new Zones during the next couple of months, and we shall follow this up by providing the data to them in map form. We shall also define Public Safety Zones for Teesside and Sheffield City airports, which were mentioned in the December 1997 consultation document.

  Meanwhile we are today issuing for consultation a draft of a circular to local planning authorities in Great Britain containing guidance for use in considering applications for development within Public Safety Zones. This recommends that new housing development, and most types of non-housing development, should not be approved within Public Safety Zones. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Subject to the progress of this consultation we hope to bring the new arrangements into effect later this year in relation to the airports which already have Public Safety Zones, and to Teesside and Sheffield City. At that stage the residual work of the Civil Aviation Authority in administering the Public Safety Zone policy will be transferred to the Department. We hope by next spring to have established Public Safety Zones at the other airports for which modelling work suggests that this would be justified.

  Land-use Planning
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on land-use planning and renewable energy in England. [87315]
  87
  Mr. Caborn
  The Government's policy is set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 22, published in February 1993. This makes clear that in formulating the policies and proposals in their development plans, and in making decisions on applications for specific renewable energy developments, local planning authorities need to consider both the immediate impact on the local environment and the wider contribution to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. They need to take account of the Government's policy for renewable energy sources along with policies for Green Belts, conservation areas and industrial and commercial development, for example.

  In October 1998, the Department published a good practice guide on "Planning for Sustainable Development" and sent copies to all local planning authorities. The guide includes advice on renewable energy. It underlines the importance of renewable energy, developing a strategy at regional and local levels for the provision of renewable energy development and having clear policies and criteria in plans to help decide individual applications. The Department has held a series of seminars for local planning authorities and others to disseminate the messages of the guide.

  On 30 March 1999, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry published a consultation document, "New and Renewable Energy: Prospects for the 21 Century". This confirmed that the Government are working towards a target of renewable energy providing 10 per cent. of UK electricity supplies as soon as possible and that they hope to achieve this by 2010. It also underlined the important role of renewables in enabling the UK to meet its legally binding target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. (compared to 1990) by 2008–12 and its goal of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent. by 2010.

  The consultation document indicated that the Government are reviewing the contribution which the planning system has to make to delivering their target for renewable energy and noted that widespread adoption of renewable of energy will not be possible unless the public is prepared to accept projects in their locality. The consultation document also acknowledged that concerns have sometimes been expressed that the current Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) scheme does not address, e.g. environmental aspects, sufficiently effectively and that future support mechanisms or obligations will need to deliver good quality schemes.

  The planning system has an important role in helping to deliver the Government's targets and goals for renewable energy and climate change. It is clear that we need a positive strategic approach to planning for renewable energy from regional level downwards, with appropriate provision made for development in authorities' plans. There needs to be an open and constructive dialogue between prospective operators, local planning authorities and local people about identifying suitable sites with sensitivity and care. We shall build on these themes in considering what further practical steps may be needed to ensure that the planning system enables renewable energy provision to contribute to the UK's sustainable energy needs while continuing to protect the countryside.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer of 25 May 1999,Official Report, column 142, on the BBC, (1) if he will set out the internal and external audit requirements for BBC Worldwide and BBC Resources Ltd; [86270]

  (2) what are the agreed borrowing limits for BBC Worldwide and BBC Resources Ltd.; and what is the security for such borrowing; [86268]

  (3) if the agreed borrowing limits for BBC Worldwide and BBC Resources Ltd. count as part of the public sector borrowing requirement. [86269]

  Janet Anderson
  BBC Worldwide and BBC Resources are audited under the BBC's group internal audit plan. Both companies are required to have an external audit because they are limited companies that exceed the threshold size for audits.

  BBC Worldwide has a loan agreement with the BBC which allows maximum borrowings of £150 million, subject to the constraints of three financial covenants: net assets, free cash flow and interest cover. BBC Resources has a £70 million term loan facility and a £30 million revolving loan facility which reduce to zero by August 2005. As with BBC Worldwide, borrowing is restricted by various financial and non-financial covenants within a loan agreement with the BBC. The covenants in both cases ensure, among other things, that licence fee money is not placed at risk.

  Only the BBC's external borrowings form part of the public sector borrowing requirement, so the borrowing limits for BBC Worldwide and BBC Resources would only impact on the public sector borrowing requirement if they were to lead to an increase in the BBC's own borrowing from the market.

  EU Weimar Meetings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his contribution to the EU meetings at Weimar on cultural and audiovisual issues, in respect of (i) European identity and history, (ii) self-regulation of the media, (iii) the Culture 2000 programme and (iv) the Commission Green Paper on Convergence. [86364]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This was an informal meeting of EU Culture Ministers, with no formal agenda or conclusions. There was a wide-ranging exchange of views on these and other subjects. On the Culture 2000 programme, I indicated the UK's desire to agree a Common Position at the formal Culture/Audiovisual Council on 28 June. That Council will also consider draft conclusions on convergence and self-regulation in the media. I drew attention to a number of features which are common to both, noting in particular that self-regulation can be expected to make an important and complementary contribution to state regulation in the light of future digital media developments. The discussion on European identity and history focused on a presentation from the Spanish writer and former Minister of Culture, Jorge Semprun.

  National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects to publish the report of the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education; and if he will make a statement. [86934]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 14 June 1999]I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) on 14 May 1999,Official Report, column 226. Printed copies of the report will be available from the Department for Education and Employment's Publication Centre from 14 June 1999.

  National Lottery (Good Causes)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the current estimate of the amount of money to be given to the good causes under the present National Lottery licence arrangements. [86688]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Our latest forecast is that the income (including interest) to good causes from the National Lottery over the seven years of the current licence will be at least £10.85 billion, £1.85 billion more than originally anticipated when the Lottery was launched in 1994.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Judicial and Police Co-operation
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what will be the name of the replacement committee dealing with matters arising from Title VI of the consolidated Treaty on European Union, Articles 29–42 concerning police and judicial co-operation on criminal matters; who will represent the UK at its meetings; and how frequently it is planned to meet; [86233]

  (2) whom he plans to appoint to the co-ordinating Committee of officials established by article 31 of the Treaty on European Union, whose duty it is to prepare for deliberations of the Council of Ministers concerning judicial and police co-operation in criminal matters. [85675]

  Mr. Straw
  The new co-ordinating Committee established by Article 36 of the revised Treaty on European Union has no formal title but is known informally as the Article 36 Committee. The United Kingdom representative is Mr. John Warne of the Organised and International Crime Directorate in the Home Office. It is for the Presidency of the day to determine how frequently the Committee meets, but we would expect there to be meetings at approximately monthly intervals.

  Millennium Compliance
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on preparations to tackle the millennium bug problem in(a) police forces and (b) fire services; [86172]
  90
  (2) what assessment he has made of millennium bug preparations in (a) the police forces and emergency services of (i) Avon and Somerset, (ii) Devon and Cornwall, (iii) Cheshire, (iv) Hampshire, (v) Metropolitan London, (vi) Warwickshire and (vii) Sussex and (b) the National Criminal Intelligence Service. [86240]

  Mr. Straw
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Her Majesty's Fire Services Inspectorate have carried out independent assessments of the millennium readiness of all police forces and fire brigades in England and Wales, using the colour coding method defined by Action 2000. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary assessment also covers the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Under this method, 'red' means there is a severe risk of material disruption, 'amber' means there is some risk of material disruption but an agreed rectification plan exists, and 'blue' means there are no identified risks of material disruption. The status of all forces and brigades, assessed according to this method, will be made public at the National Infrastructure Forum on 13 July. The aim is that by that date, no forces or brigades will be 'red', and by September, all will be 'blue'.

  The NHS Executive has assessed the readiness of all NHS bodies, including NHS Ambulance Trusts, on a regular basis since June 1998. Aggregated figures are published on a quarterly basis, and the individual monitoring returns from each organisation are also published on the Internet. The latest returns at 31 March 1999 were published on 21 May. An up-to-date assessment of the status of all individual NHS organisations, including NHS Ambulance Trusts, will be made public at the National Infrastructure Forum on 13 July.

  K4 Committee
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 May 1999,Official Report, columns 445–46, concerning the business conducted at the final meeting of the K4 Committee in Brussels on 29 to 30 April, if he will list (a) the 25 agenda items there considered, (b) the Treaty base, terms of reference for Eurodac, and documentary reference to rules for its implementation, and any parliamentary scrutiny related thereto and (c) where, and by what means, the proposals of the United Kingdom for mutual recognition of criminal court decisions have been published, what consultative or scrutiny procedures have taken, or are to take, place in respect of them, and what comparable proposals have been received from other member Governments. [86235]

  Mr. Straw
  As regards listing, the 25 agenda items considered at the K4 Committee meeting on 29–30 April, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 8 June 1999,Official Report, column 259.

  The draft Eurodac Convention had as its legal base Article K3(2)(c) of the Treaty on European Union. Its purpose is to assist in determining the member state which is responsible, under the Dublin Convention, for examining an application for asylum lodged in a member state, and otherwise to facilitate the application of the Dublin Convention. The draft implementing rules were developed in the context of these proposals. The draft Convention cleared Parliamentary scrutiny in May 1998, but the draft Protocol had not cleared scrutiny when the Treaty of Amsterdam came into effect; the draft

  91
  implementing rules were not subject to the parliamentary scrutiny arrangements. The European Commission has now adopted a draft Regulation under Article 63(1)(a) of the Treaty establishing the European Community replacing the draft Eurodac Convention and Protocol, but this has not yet been communicated to member states.

  The United Kingdom's discussion paper on the mutual recognition of court decisions and judgments in criminal matters was submitted to the K4 Committee on 29 March. It follows up the initiative of the United Kingdom Presidency endorsed at the Cardiff European Council, the conclusions of which called on the Council to identify the scope for greater mutual recognition of decisions of each other's courts. The paper, together with an Explanatory Memorandum, was deposited for scrutiny on 31 March and a copy of both has been placed in the Library.

  France and Belgium have produced jointly an informal document described as a study proposal, in preparation for the Tampere European Council, on the need to develop criminal judicial co-operation. The document calls for a common push to deal more effectively with the key concerns of citizens on organised crime, corruption and European Community budget fraud, and suggests that this could be done by instruments on money laundering, use of offshore centres by organised crime and use of new technology for cross-border crime.

  European Council
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 May 1999,Official Report, columns 445–46, when, and by whom, the agenda for the additional European Council Meeting due in October at Tampere, Finland, concerning judicial and home affairs in the European Union will be published; what principal documents will be available to the public and national Parliaments prior to that meeting; and when it is planned that they will be available. [86232]

  Mr. Straw
  There is normally no formal agenda for European Councils. The German Presidency and the incoming Finnish Presidency have proposed that the Tampere special European Council should focus on three main issues: immigration and asylum, the fight against cross-border crime and the establishment of a European judicial area, including citizens' access to justice. A list of documents to be submitted to the European Council is unlikely to be finalised until shortly before the meeting. Appropriate documents will be made available to the public and Parliament in accordance with the normal procedures.

  Fire Hydrants
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance his Department gives to the Fire Service on(a) the location of and (b) distances
  between hydrants. [86299]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Office issued guidance to the Fire Service on water hydrants in the "Manual of Firemanship, Book 7". The most recent edition (dated 1997) states on page 73 that"hydrants are normally placed at intervals of between 90 and 180 metres, except in the case of high risks and rural areas".
  92
  Further guidance on water hydrants is issued by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Draft Convention (Road Traffic Offences)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's contribution to the formulation, within the Schengen framework, of a draft Convention on Co-operation in Matters of Criminal Proceedings for Offences Against Road Traffic Regulations and the Enforcement of Fines Imposed from Such Offences. [86724]

  Mr. Straw
  The agreement on this subject was adopted by the Schengen Executive Committee on 28 April. The Government were not involved in drawing it up and it does not at present apply to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has recently applied to participate in certain parts of the Schengen acquis, but has reserved its position on whether it would wish to become a party to the agreement on road traffic offences.

  Electronic Intercepts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if legislation currently being discussed by the Council of Ministers on electronic intercepts is consistent with the 1981 Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data; and if he will make a statement. [86719]

  Kate Hoey
  The draft Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the member states of the European Union would, if agreed, be implemented in United Kingdom law in accordance with data protection legislation. The 1981 Council of Europe Convention was implemented in United Kingdom law by the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the UK share of (i) costs and (ii) personnel for the Schengen Information System. [86446]

  Mr. Straw
  There are likely to be three main elements to the costs for the Schengen Information System (SIS): the cost of running and staffing the inquiry points at the United Kingdom National SIS; the cost of the national contribution to the costs of the central SIS in Strasbourg; and a one-off contribution towards the start-up costs of the system. At this stage, it is not possible to provide a precise estimate of the costs and staffing arrangements, which we are discussing with interested parties, including the police service.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the cost of current applicant countries joining the Schengen Acquis; and whether present member states intend to share those costs. [86737]

  Kate Hoey
  The Schengen acquis was incorporated into the European Union Treaty structures on the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam on 1 May 1999. Any costs falling on to member states and associated with
  93
  accession to the Schengen acquis are, therefore, now part of the overall costs incurred in assisting candidate countries to prepare for accession to the European Union.

  Police Car Response Times
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the response time of a police car using its blue light in responding to emergency calls. [86461]

  Mr. Boateng
  No research on this subject has been commissioned or evaluated.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the cases arising from asylum applications made(a) prior to 1 July 1993 and (b) between 1 July 1993 and 31 December 1995 have been dealt with under the asylum backlog procedures; and what proportion of cases so dealt with have resulted in the granting of exceptional leave to remain. [86642]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Up to the end of April 1999, a total of 2,840 cases have been decided under the asylum backlog procedures. 94 per cent. of decisions were grants of exceptional leave to remain.

  2,075 of the decisions were made on asylum applications lodged prior to July 1993 and 765 decisions were made on applications lodged between July 1993 and the end of December 1995.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received on the means of arrival in the UK of asylum seekers granted refugee status or indefinite leave to remain; and what assessment he has made of the effect of the measures in the Immigration and Asylum Bill on the routes they have taken. [87021]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Asylum applications are received from persons arriving at ports, persons who seek to enter, or who have entered, clandestinely and those who have entered lawfully for other purposes. It is not always possible to establish the means of arrival of asylum seekers. The Department does not collate specific records of the routings used by those granted refugee status or indefinite leave to remain. Measures in the Immigration and Asylum Bill contain powers designed to reduce the number of clandestine entrants and inadequately documented persons arriving in the United Kingdom. It is not the object of these measures to keep out genuine refugees. We remain firmly committed to dealing with asylum seekers in a way that complies with the United Kingdom's international obligations.

  Passport Agency
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times this year the Liverpool office of the UK Passport Agency has turned away applicants who attended in person without serving them; and how many such applicants it turned away without serving on Friday 7 May. [86352]
  94
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Passport applicants who have attended personally have not been turned away if this would have resulted in their missing their travel date.

  The Passport Agency has not kept a detailed record of the number of passport applicants attending in person at the Liverpool passport office who have been turned away. This has only happened very exceptionally where the number of applicants inside the Liverpool office have been the maximum permitted in the office. In these circumstances, the position has been explained to applicants who have been asked to call back at a later date.

  The Passport Agency has no specific information available for 7 May and it is not aware of any particular problems arising from customers being turned away from the Liverpool office on that date. However, if my hon. Friend has concern about a particular case I should be grateful if he would let David Gatenby, Chief Executive of the Passport Agency know, and he will be pleased to investigate the matter and report urgently to me.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the passport service provided by the Passport Agency's high street partners takes priority over the Agency's standard service. [86334]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Passport Agency gives priority to passport applications by the applicant's declared date of travel. This applies to all applications, whether they are received via the Agency's partners or directly in the mail, or made in person. As partnership applications have been pre-checked for accuracy and completedness, and the fee has been collected, these applications can normally be processed more speedily than direct postal applications.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of the passport service provided by the Passport Agency's high street partners on the Agency's standard service. [86335]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The service provided by the Passport Agency's high street partners since 1996 has helped the Agency to deal effectively and efficiently with high levels of demand by reducing processing times for passport applications. Partnership applications are pre-checked for accuracy and completeness, which enables them to be processed more speedily. This has had a beneficial impact on the service provided by the Passport Agency to all its customers.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources were given to the Passport Agency following introduction of the requirement that every child travelling overseas should have an individual passport. [87106]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As part of its business planning, the Agency took account of this change in forecasting demand for passports in 1998–99, and 1999–2000, and planning the resources and budget needed to deal effectively with this forecast demand.

  The Agency is on a net financing regime and is required fully to recover its costs from passport fees.
  95
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Passport Agency has relaxed its procedures for checking passport applications; and if he will make a statement. [87107]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is no relaxation of security, but to facilitate the more efficient processing of new passport applications the Passport Agency has issued guidance to its examiners to ensure they do not unnecessarily delay issuing passports by exercising discretion to approve applications where the examiner has no significant doubt about the identity of the applicant. The guidance has been agreed with the Agency trade unions as not compromising effective checks.

  The Agency is often criticised for taking too narrow a view of whether a counter-signatory "is a person of similar standing" to a professionally qualified person. Passport examiners have been encouraged to give a reasonable interpretation to this requirement. In the context of the whole application and supporting documentary evidence, sensible use of discretion can ensure both quicker and proper processing of applications.

  In order to clear quickly straightforward renewal applications made in person, certain existing passports are being extended for two years provided certain criteria are fulfilled. Passports valid or expired within the last five years are being exceptionally extended provided the holder's identity can be confirmed, for example, by comparing the photograph with the photograph in the old passport, or with the person who is applying in person, and provided certain other checks are satisfactorily completed.

  These extended passports are properly issued passports valid for travel. Immigration authorities abroad have been made aware of this position.

  Neither of the measures imply any relaxation in the Agency's security. No security checks have been suspended.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passport applications are currently outstanding; what is the average time taken between receipt of the application and the issue of the passport; and what were the estimated figures for June 1996, June 1997 and June 1998. [87112]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Passport Agency currently has 487,658 passport applications outstanding, which represents, at current output levels, about one month's work.

  The current average turnround time across the Agency's six passport offices is 34 working days. The average turnround time in June 1996, June 1997 and June 1998 was 8 working days, 9.5 working days and 16 working days respectively.

  Teething problems with the introduction of new computerised passport-issuing arrangements into the Liverpool and Newport Passport Offices, and high seasonal demand for passports, have caused current delays.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the time that will be taken between application to the Passport Agency and issue of a passport for(a) new passports
  96
  and (b) renewal of a passport (i) one month hence and (ii) six months hence. [86980]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is difficult to provide an estimate of the position in one month's time as the Passport Agency is prioritising applications to meet applicants declared travel dates. With high seasonal demand for passports, this means there are delays in processing non-urgent applications. Much depends on intake, the Agency's output, and the impact of the measures the Agency is taking to reduce current delays.

  The Agency is meeting travel dates in 99.99 per cent. of cases and will continue to do so throughout the summer. The Agency's aim is to reduce turnaround times to 10 days by September.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Newport Passport Office regarding(a) the telephone service and (b) the general service provided to the public; and if he will make a statement. [86944]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am aware from the weekly reports that I have been receiving from the Passport Agency's Chief Executive on the Agency's current operational difficulties of the teething problems that the Newport Passport Office have encountered in piloting new computerised passport issuing arrangements. Productivity has been below expectations and arrears of work have developed. In addition, along with the Agency's other five offices, Newport has been dealing with high seasonal demand for passports.

  The Passport Agency is taking a number of measures to improve the position at Newport. Applications are being prioritised by customers declared travel dates, and Newport is meeting those dates for 99.99 per cent. of passports issued. Additional staff are being deployed, examination processes are being streamlined, and Newport is working extended hours.

  Current delays will reduce as a result of the action being taken and the seasonal nature of the Agency's work. The aim is to reduce turnround times to 10 days by September.

  Because of its arrears of work, the Newport Office has been swamped with telephone and written inquiries. Despite its best endeavours, and with its focus on the customers declared travel dates, the Newport Office has not in many cases been able to provide a satisfactory response. The Passport Agency very much regrets the present situation and is taking action to improve matters. It is looking urgently at alternative telephone answering arrangements.

  I have written to all hon. Members with a more detailed explanation of the Agency's current operational position, and its plans to reduce current delays.

  Trial by Jury
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will estimate the proportion of cases where trial by jury having been denied by the magistrates, refused by the Crown Court, and having given
  97
  rise to a subsequent conviction in the magistrates court, are then likely to be appealed to the Crown Court; and if he will estimate the total cost involved in such cases; [86762]

  (2) what is his estimate of the cost of appeals to the Crown Court by defendants to whom the magistrates have refused to accede to their request for jury trial in respect of either way offences; and how such overall estimated cost has been calculated; [86760]

  (3) what he estimates to be the likely annual savings to the public purse of abolishing the rights of defendants to elect jury trial for either-way offences, setting out how his estimate is calculated. [86758]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not currently available. Detailed estimates of the costs and savings of the proposed procedure are still under consideration.

  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of their eventual sentence defendants who elect jury trial and subsequently plead guilty serve while on remand. [86766]

  Mr. Boateng
  The available information relates to the average time spent on remand for those tried at the Crown Court. Information on a defendant's plea and the numbers electing jury trial are not available.

  Provisional information for 1998 shows that the average time spent on remand for untried prisoners prior to conviction at the Crown Court was 4.1 months. This compares with an average sentence length imposed at the Crown Court of 22.1 months. This shows that, on average, around 20 per cent. of the eventual sentence was served on remand as an untried prisoner.

  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes that magistrates should be entitled to deny jury trial to a defendant charged with an either-way offence who, if convicted, they consider they would be likely to commit to Crown Court for sentence. [86756]

  Mr. Boateng
  Among the factors magistrates are currently required to have regard to under section 19 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 is whether the punishment which they would have the power to inflict if the defendant is convicted would be adequate. Magistrates will continue to be expected to consider each case individually and on its own particular facts in determining the appropriate mode of trial having regard to whether their sentencing powers are sufficient.

  Either-way Offences
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all either-way offences. [86753]

  Mr. Boateng
  There is no readily available list of triable either-way offences. Appendix Four of the annual Command Paper "Criminal statistics England and Wales" lists just over 370 triable either-way offence codes which are used for statistical purposes. Each code may cover more than one offence and these codes cover approximately 700 offences. Other triable either-way offences are grouped together under one ad hoc code. Copies of the Command Paper are available in the Library.
  98
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many either-way cases were tried in the Crown Court in each of the last five years for which records are available; how many were contested; how many defendants pleaded guilty; and what proportion of those which were contested resulted in a conviction for(a) all offences charged and (b) for any offence charged. [86764]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not held centrally, but is being prepared. I will write to the right hon. and learned Member when this information becomes available.

  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the proportion of defendants electing for trial of either-way offences in the Crown Court who are persistent offenders abusing the system. [86754]

  Mr. Boateng
  Research conducted by the Home Office showed that nearly 90 per cent. of convicted offenders who had elected trial in 1989 had previous convictions and over a third had more than 10 previous convictions.

  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of defendants electing trial in the Crown Court for either-way offences have(a) been convicted and (b) received sentences greater than could have been imposed by the magistrates. [86757]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not collected centrally. Home Office research conducted showed that two-thirds of convicted defendants who had elected trial in 1989 received non-custodial sentences. Others will have received custodial sentences within the powers of magistrates.

  The same research showed that those who elected trial were three times as likely to receive a custodial sentence, and sentences were on average two and a half times as long as similar defendants sentenced in magistrates courts.

  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of defendants electing trial in the Crown Court for either-way offences subsequently plead guilty(a) to all offences of which they were charged, (b) to the most serious offence of which they were charged and (c) to an offence less serious than the most serious offence with which they were charged. [86755]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not collected centrally. Home Office research conducted in 1989 showed that of convicted offenders who had elected trial, 70 per cent. finally pleaded guilty to all charges and 14 per cent. finally pleaded guilty to some charges.

  Trial Costs
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the daily cost of a trial in a contested case before(a) the Crown Court in England and Wales and (b) the Sheriff's Court in Scotland. [86763]

  Mr. Boateng
  In 1997–98, the average cost of a contested trial in the Crown Court in England and Wales is estimated to be £18,100. The estimate is for the costs of a trial of average length and includes "capital costs" as well as the running costs of the Criminal Justice System for all of the different agencies.
  99
  In 1997–98, the average criminal case cost in Sheriff and jury cases in Scotland where evidence was led was £10,900. The estimate includes court, prosecution and legal aid costs—but excludes "capital costs". Daily costs are not available.

  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the cost of trials(a) in the Crown Court and (b) in the magistrates court lasting (i) one day, (ii) two days, (iii) three days, (iv) four days and (v) five days; and how such figures are calculated. [86759]

  Mr. Boateng
  The average costs of a trial in England and Wales in 1997–98 are estimated to be:£8,700 for a trial in the Crown Court (regardless of plea, all indictable offences); and
  £500 for a trial in a magistrates' court (regardless of plea, all offences).

  The estimates are for the costs of a trial of average length and include "capital costs", as well as the running costs of the Criminal Justice System for all of the different agencies. Separate figures are not available for trial of different lengths.

  Remand Prisoners
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the additional privileges enjoyed by a prisoner in custody on remand as compared to a prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment or youth custody. [86765]

  Mr. George Howarth
  A person remanded to prison awaiting trial is entitled to a number of additional privileges when compared to a prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment or youth custody.

  Unconvicted prisoners are allowed to:

  have additional books, newspapers, writing materials and other means of occupation in their possession at their own expense;

  undertake business activities;

  wear their own clothing;

  decide not to have their hair cut if they wish;

  send and receive an unlimited amount of letters;

  be visited and treated by a registered medical practitioner or dentist of their choice at their own expense;

  have an extra private cash allowance;

  have additional smoking materials in their possession;

  have unlimited visits; and

  decide whether or not to work.

  Unconvicted prisoners are also not required to share a cell with a convicted prisoner.

  Crime (Sentences) Act 1997
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment under section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 have received tariffs of(a) less than three years and (b) less than five years. [86323]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Of the 60 prisoners currently confirmed as serving life sentences under section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, seven have tariffs (relevant parts under section 28 of the Act) of less than three years and 29 of less than five years.

  Short Tariff Prisoners
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change(a) Prison Service and (b) Parole Board procedures to ensure that prisoners with short tariffs are not unnecessarily held beyond expiry of the tariff. [86375]

  Mr. George Howarth
  None. Short tariff life sentence prisoners are, with rare exceptions, those whose tariffs (relevant parts) have been set by the courts. Such prisoners are statutorily entitled to an oral hearing of their case by the Parole Board once the relevant part of the sentence has expired. The Board may direct the prisoner's release following such hearings if they are satisfied that the level of risk is acceptable. No change is, therefore, necessary to Parole Board procedures.

  The Prison Service has set up an 86-bed main centre at Brixton prison to provide fast-track arrangements for life sentence prisoners with short tariffs. The aim is to provide expedited reports on such prisoners so that they may be allocated at an early stage to other prisons which can offer any necessary course work on offending behaviour. This should enable such work to be completed in time for the outcome to be reported to the Parole Board for the oral hearing on tariff expiry.

  Experimental Psychiatric Research
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a list of the papers which his Department holds in connection with experimental psychiatric research on delinquent youths at(a) the Burden Neurological Institute in Bristol, (b) Star Cross Hospital, Newton Abbott and (c) other institutions during the 1970s. [86460]

  Mr. Boateng
  I and my Department of Health colleagues need to find out whether there are records of any such research. We will write to the hon. Member once we have been able to establish the position.

  Visas
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the system of handling visa applications of family members of refugees residing in the UK. [86842]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are no such plans.

  However, in response to the crisis in Kosovo, special arrangements have been made to facilitate family reunion for Kosovans who have been evacuated from Macedonia under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Humanitarian Evacuation Programme. Arrangements have also been made to send a Home Office team to Macedonia to assist the UNHCR in the registration of refugees and selection for evacuation to the United Kingdom. A further Home Office team is going to Tirana to process applications from family members notified to the Red Cross by their families in the United Kingdom. This is to assist the British diplomatic post in Tirana which is not resourced to provide a full visa service.

  Police Officer Dismissal
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish his reasons for
  101
  overturning the Devon and Cornwall Chief Constable's decision to dismiss police officers Wayne Burns and Andy May. [86412]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 11 June 1999]Wayne Burns and Andy May appealed to me against decisions by the Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall in January 1998 to find them guilty of disciplinary offences and dismiss them from the force. I appointed an independent tribunal to consider the appeal and to make recommendations to me. The tribunal reheard the evidence and unanimously recommended that the appeals should be allowed.

  I considered all the facts of the case, the points raised in the grounds of appeal and the Chief Constable's response, together with the report of the tribunal. I decided to accept the tribunal's reasons and their recommendation to allow the appeals. The reason for my decision was that I was not satisfied that the charges had been proved to the criminal standard of proof which was the standard required at the relevant time. The standard of proof required in police discipline proceedings has now been lowered from the criminal standard to the civil standard but only in respect of alleged police misconduct occurring after 1 April 1999.

  Police Custody
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fatalities have occurred in police custody units in each of the past 10 years. [86978]

  Mr. Boateng
  Deaths in police custody units are included in the statistics for deaths in police custody or otherwise in the hands of the police. During the period from 1991–92 to 1994–95, such deaths were tabulated on a financial year basis for the Metropolitan Police and a calendar year basis for the rest of England and Wales, with the result that no national annual totals are available for that period. The figures for the last 10 years are as follows:

  Year

  Metropolitan police

  Year

  Provinces

  Total

  1989

  37

  1989

  36

  73

  1990

  20

  1990

  41

  61

  1991

  24

  1991

  36

  60

  1991–921

  21

  1992

  33

  —

  1992–93

  18

  1993

  18

  —

  1993–94

  16

  1994

  36

  —

  1994–95

  15

  1995

  39

  —

  1995–96

  13

  1995–96

  37

  50

  1996–97

  18

  2

  39

  57

  1997–98

  12

  1996–97

  57

  69

  1998–993

  17

  1997–98

  49

  66

  1998–99

  1 Change to financial year basis includes some figures previously counted in 1991

  2 Change to financial year basis includes some figures previously counted in 1995

  3 Provisional figures

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what level of supervision is required in police custody units. [86979]

  Mr. Boateng
  Section 36 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides that one or more custody officers shall be appointed for each designated police station. No officer may be appointed a custody officer 102
  unless he is of at least the rank of sergeant. An officer of any rank may perform the functions of a custody officer at a designated police station if a custody officer is not readily available to perform them.

  Guidance on the interpretation of "readily available" was given in the report of the Steering Group on Custody Officers which was circulated to Chief Officers and to Police Authorities in July 1993.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the statutory provisions which apply to police custody units. [86977]

  Mr. Boateng
  The principal statutory provisions relating to police custody units are contained in Part IV of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued concerning the centralisation of police custody units. [86976]

  Mr. Boateng
  In July 1993, the Home Office circulated to Chief Officers and to Police Authorities the report of the Steering Group on Custody Officers, which included the recommendation that each chief officer who had not already done so should review the provision of designated stations with a view to rationalising custody facilities.

  Kosovo Refugees
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, following the changed circumstances, any more refugees from Kosovo will be evacuated from the region to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [87354]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government's aim, in common with that of our European Union partners, has been to ensure that the great majority of refugees are looked after in the region so that they are able to return to their homes when it is safe to do so. We have also responded to the request for help from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to evacuate the most vulnerable people from the area. We accordingly accepted around 4,000 refugees into the United Kingdom. The stage now reached in the military action against the Milosevic regime and the fact that the first steps have been taken to allow the refugees to return mean that significant evacuations under the Humanitarian Evacuation Programmes are no longer necessary.

  We have, therefore, decided to reduce significantly the number of flights into the United Kingdom. After today, we expect to receive a further flight this week and one next week. We will, then, keep the situation under review. We will focus on people who cannot be cared for in the region and on the spouses and dependants of people who are already in the United Kingdom.

  Those refugees arriving under the Programme who have been granted 12 months leave to enter will not have their stay curtailed. We will, however, actively be establishing arrangements to facilitate the return of those who want to go back to Kosovo before then.

  Consideration of claims for asylum for citizens of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) will be suspended temporarily while the security situation in Kosovo is clarified. Consideration of applications will resume as soon as practicable. Nobody will be sent back to Kosovo until we are satisfied that it is safe for them to go. We

  103
  propose for the time being to grant 12 months leave to enter or remain to Kosovan Albanians on an exceptional basis. This will provide for the same status and access to benefits as between those FRY citizens who have arrived as part of the UNHCR's Humanitarian Evacuation Programme and those who have arrived independently once their cases are decided.

  Although the evacuation flights from Macedonia to the United Kingdom are coming to an end, we will continue to apply family reunion criteria under our normal immigration policy for those in the United Kingdom who have refugee status, and we propose to continue to operate family reunion for those who have come to the United Kingdom under the Humanitarian Evacuation Programme. Anyone granted such a visa for travel to the United Kingdom will, however, be required to make their own travel and accommodation arrangements.

  I would like to take this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to the hard work which local authorities and the voluntary sector have done in preparing for and receiving evacuees from Kosovo. Even those areas which have not actually received flights or accommodated evacuees have responded with generosity and enthusiasm to the need to plan for arrivals.

  Handguns
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) illegally held handguns and (b) legally held handguns have been handed in since 1 May 1997. [86746]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on the number of illegally or legally held handguns handed in to the police on a routine basis is not kept centrally.

  Following the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which prohibited large and small-calibre handguns, a total of 162,198 handguns were surrendered to the police in England, Scotland and Wales.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents involving handguns have been recorded for each month since May 1997. [86745]

  Mr. Boateng
  The figures for notifiable offences recorded by the police in which handguns were reported to have been used in England and Wales since 1 May 1997 are set out in the table. The figures for 1998 are provisional and currently available for only the first three months of the year.

  Month

  Number of offences

  1997

  May

  214

  June

  208

  July

  212

  August

  212

  September

  183

  October

  216

  November

  237

  December

  266

  1998

  January

  216

  February

  201

  March

  210

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on 27 and 28 May, in respect of the draft Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in so far as this relates to the interception of communications, indicating what position the Government advocated. [86435]

  Mr. Straw
  No agreement was reached at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 27 and 28 May on the interception of communications provisions in the draft Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. The Council agreed that the outstanding issues should be referred to the Article 36 Committee. The Government's position remains as set out in my reply given to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 23 March 1999,Official Report, column 176.

  Royal Escort Costs
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) police and (b) other security officers were deployed to escort the royal party to the Chelsea Flower Show in May; and what was the cost of this operation; [86751]

  (2) what his policy is in respect of security protection for members of the Royal Family other than the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, their offspring, and Princes Henry and William; and what was the cost of security protection for those members of the Royal Family not listed above for the last year for which figures are available. [86750]

  Mr. Boateng
  We seek to ensure the most effective and efficient protective arrangements for the Royal Family and other public figures in the light of the changing threat from terrorism and other continuing risks. It is our policy not to comment on the details of protection arrangements for individuals, as to do so could compromise their security.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the visit of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), to Shamrock Farm on 15 December 1998 was unannounced. [86885]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The visit was made by appointment. I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to visit establishments unannounced, but members of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate do make unannounced visits.

  Metropolitan Police (Advertising)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the advertisement placed by the Metropolitan Police in the London Evening Standard on 9 June. [87109]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that the advertisement cost £11,000.
  105
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the Metropolitan Police spent on(a) recruitment advertising and (b) general advertising in each of the last three years; and what is the budget for the
  current year. [87110]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has provided the following information:

  Year

  Other advertising

  Recruitment advertising

  1996–97

  620,000

  862,000

  1997–98

  659,872

  859,000

  1998–99

  782,236

  1,598,945

  1999–2000

  915,000

  1,565,000

  Access to Government Information
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the 1998 report on the operation of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. [87105]

  Mr. Straw
  I hope to be in a position to publish the 1998 Monitoring Report, on the operation of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, shortly. Publication of the Monitoring Report has been delayed due to work on the draft Freedom of Information Bill.

  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the per capita figures for the use of neuroleptic drugs in each women's prison; and what percentage of prisoners in each women's prisons are users, at least weekly, of tranquillisers and pain killers. [86952]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 26 October 1998,Official Report, columns 59–60.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the numbers and percentage of prisoners who will be participating in drug treatment programmes in each of the next 10 years. [86956]

  Mr. George Howarth
  It is not possible to make any meaningful estimate at this stage. Implementation of the Prison Service drug strategy will allow projections to be made at the end of this financial year, once measurement and monitoring systems have been established.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of annual cost of imprisoning cannabis offenders in each of the past four years for which figures are available. [86949]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The cost of imprisonment for cannabis offenders is not calculated separately from other offenders. The information in the table gives an average cost per place for all prisoners. Cost per place for 1998–99 is provisional and subject to validation by prisons.
  106

  Average cost per place for prisoners

  Financial year

  Cost per place (£ cash terms)

  Cost per place (1992–93 prices)

  1995–96

  24,178

  22,562

  1996–97

  24,271

  21,975

  1997–98

  23,940

  21,152

  1998–99

  25,096

  21,633

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the report on the experiments on the efficacy of medicinal cannabis to be published. [86945]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information from G W Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the company licensed to conduct cannabis medical research, indicates that clinical trials are scheduled to start in mid-July. These are likely to continue for one or two years. Publication of results is a matter for the research community.

  Prisons (Random Drug Tests)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of random drugs tests in prisons on the use of(a) cannabis, (b) cocaine and (c) heroin. [86958]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The table sets out the percentages of random mandatory drug test (MDT) samples that have tested positive in each of the last three financial years. It is not possible to attribute any changes entirely to the MDT programme. Supply reduction and treatment programmes also impact on the level of drug misuse in prisons.

  Percentage of random mandatory drug tests positive for cannabis, heroin and cocaine

  Drug type

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Cannabis

  19.9

  16.5

  14

  Opiates (including heroin)

  5.4

  4.2

  4.4

  Cocaine

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  Drug Use
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what forecasts he has made of the levels of use of(a) cannabis, (b) cocaine and (c) heroin in June 2002 relative to the figures for June 1997. [86953]

  Mr. Boateng
  None. The targets set recently under the drugs strategy by the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator include reducing by 20 per cent. by 2002 the numbers of 11–16 year-olds who use Class A drugs.

  Drug Offences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the numbers of offenders who will receive prison sentences for all (i) cannabis, (ii) heroin and (iii) illegal drugs repeat offences in each of the next 10 years if(a) present trends continue and (b) the Government's current policies are successful. [86950]

  Mr. Boateng
  No. The United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator recently set all national and local agencies and departments the target of reducing levels of repeat offending among drug misusing offenders by 50 per cent.
  107
  by 2008. Systems are being put in place to monitor progress towards this target and others set under the drugs strategy.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if(a) travelcards and passes, (b) luncheon vouchers, (c) protective clothing, (d) gift vouchers and (e) other payments in kind are disregarded for benefit purposes if received by a Jobseeker's Allowance claimant who is participating on a European Social Fund training course. [85750]

  Angela Eagle
  Jobseeker's Allowance regulations provide for any income in kind such as travelcards and passes; luncheon vouchers; protective clothing and gift vouchers, to be disregarded in the calculation of entitlement to benefit.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for (1) what reasons Disability Living Allowance was removed from Brenda Oakham of Barton Close, Paignton, in April; and for what reason no explanation was given; [86428]

  (2) if he will arrange to expedite the Disability Living Allowance review in relation to Brenda Oakham of Barton Close, Paignton. [86429]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 14 June 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions. You asked why Disability Living Allowance (DLA) was removed from Mrs Brenda Oakham, in April. why no explanation was given, and that the DLA review in relation to Mrs Oakham's case be expedited.
  It may help if I explain that entitlement to DLA does not depend on the diagnosis of a condition but on the way in which that condition affects a person on a day-to-day basis. Decisions are made by adjudication officers (AOs) who are statutory office holders. It would be improper of me to comment on, or interfere in, their decisions. I can confirm that, although an award of DLA may be given for life, an AO may reduce or revoke an entitlement decision if information is received which indicates that a person's entitlement may have changed.
  Mrs Oakham's entitlement was examined as part of the work of the Benefit Integrity Project. With the help of a visiting officer Mrs Oakham completed a questionnaire on 21 October 1998 giving details of her current care and mobility needs. In addition, a report was obtained from Mrs Oakham's General Practitioner. A report was also completed by a Medical Services doctor who examined Mrs Oakham on 15 February 1999. Following a thorough consideration of all the evidence about her current needs, an AO decided on 10 March 1999 that Mrs Oakham no longer satisfied the conditions for entitlement to either component of DLA from 15 February 1999. This decision, which included an explanation of the reasons for the decision, was issued to Mrs Oakham on 28 April.
  Your letter to me dated 5 May was accepted as a request for a review of that decision. On 9 June, a different AO considered all the evidence, including additional evidence submitted with your letter. The revised decision is that Mrs Oakham is entitled to the
  108
  lower rate mobility component from 15 February 1999 and the highest rate care component from 31 May 1996. The decision was issued to Mrs Oakham on 11 June. This includes a full explanation of the reasons for the decision and details of her right of appeal to an independent Disability Appeal Tribunal, if she is unhappy with the outcome.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Litigants Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to introduce a compensation scheme for litigants whose cases could not proceed because of failure in listing for which the court service is responsible; and if he will make a statement. [86652]

  Mr. Vaz
  None. When any mistake which is the fault of the Court Service, including an administrative error over listing, leads to loss for a party in a court action, the Court Service will consider making an ex gratia payment, in line with Treasury guidance.

  Documents Service
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answers of 18 May 1999,Official Report, column 311, if he will deposit in the Library copies of the Commission proposals referred to. [86706]

  Mr. Vaz
  At present, only provisional versions of the Commission proposals have been made available. Copies of the proposals will be placed in the Library in the usual way as soon as a formal proposal is made.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Reach-Out Fund
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on the launch of the Reach-Out fund to enhance university interaction with business. [87033]

  Mr. Battle
  Following the Competitiveness White Paper announcement that the DTI and the DfEE would jointly create the Reach-Out fund in partnership with the HEFCE to enhance university-business interaction, the HEFCE recently led a consultation with the academic and business communities on the proposed aims and objectives of the fund. There was strong support for the creation of the fund and detailed responses have enabled us to finalise its design.

  I am therefore pleased to announce that I and my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone, the Minister for Education, are today jointly launching the Higher Education Reach-Out to Business and the Community Fund at a Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals conference on regional competitiveness.

  The Reach-Out fund, rising to around £20 million per year, is intended to initiate an important third stream of funding for universities, alongside research and teaching funds to help recognise the importance of working with

  109
  business and develop the capability in universities to respond to business needs. This in turn will help to stimulate more informed demand from business for greater innovation and competitiveness. The fund will be open to all universities in England and Northern Ireland (in partnership with the DENI), complementing measures in Scotland and Wales.

  There will initially be two calls for applications—the first of which is issued today and invites applications by 15 September for the first allocations to be made early in November 1999. The second call will be announced by January 2000 and will follow a similar timetable, allowing three months for response, with allocations announced around two months from the closing date.

  Copies of the Applications Guidelines have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Regional Assistance Map
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to announce his proposed map for regional assistance. [87030]

  Mr. Wills
  As soon as possible.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 12 March 1999,Official Report, column 403, what account he took of (a) the Government's information policies and (b) the implications for public confidence in the Government's policies on biotechnology of his decision not to reveal details of meetings held between Ministers in his Department and representatives of biotechnology companies. [86486]

  Mr. Battle
  Ministers and civil servants meet many people as part of the process of policy development and analysis. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the "Ministerial Code", the "Civil Service Code", and "Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists". Some of these discussions take place on a confidential basis, and in order to preserve confidentiality it is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what projects in Essex have(a) been approved in respect of the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation and (b) taken up that approval. [86436]

  Mr. Battle
  The Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) for renewables requires the Public Electricity Suppliers to secure specified generating capacity from specified renewables. Thirty-one (31) projects with an aggregate capacity of 319 Mega Watts have been contracted in Essex under the NFFO arrangements made so far. Six of these projects have been commissioned and we expect many more to do so in due course.

  Libya (Sanctions)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on measures taken at European Communities level to remove sanctions on Libya. [86722]
  110
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on 20 April 1999, Official Report, columns 512–13.

HEALTH

  Yellow Card Scheme
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the operation of the Yellow Card Scheme. [86156]

  Ms Jowell
  The Yellow Card Scheme is run on a day-to-day basis by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) on behalf of the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM), the expert advisory committee to the Licensing Authority, which has responsibilities under the Medicines Act 1986 for the promotion of collection and investigation of information relating to adverse reactions (ADRs).

  The MCA and the CSM regularly review all aspects of Yellow Card Scheme including:

  1. The number of reports received, trends in reporting, the source of reports and their quality.

  2. The proportion of serious adverse drug reactions compared to non serious and by reporting group.

  3. The recent extension of the Yellow Card Scheme to include hospital pharmacists as reporters and the inclusion of community pharmacists later this year.

  4. The progress of special reporting initiatives such as:

  i. The HIV Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Scheme.

  ii. Pilot schemes for extending the Yellow Card Scheme to include nurses and to investigate reporting of suspected ADRs in children.

  iii. Development of electronic Yellow Cards.

  5. Feedback from focus groups investigating GPs perceptions about the Yellow Card Scheme and how it might be improved.

  6. Providing feedback to reporters in regular bulletins such as "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance".

  The work of activities of the four MCA/CSM Regional Monitoring Centres in Merseyside, Northern Region, Wales and the West Midlands is reviewed at an annual meeting with the MCA.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Yellow Card Scheme reports since 1989 have been received by the Medicines Control Agency regarding adverse reaction to metrizamide/myodil; and if he will make a statement. [86158]

  Ms Jowell
  The total number of suspected adverse drug reaction reports for reactions to metrizamide and myodil received under the United Kingdom spontaneous reporting scheme (Yellow Card Scheme) for the period from 1 January 1989 was none and 8 respectively. It should be noted that some of these reactions have been reported retrospectively and were reported to have occurred between 1972–1989.

  NHS Pay Awards
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average pay award to(a) nurses, (b) doctors, (c) speech therapists, (d) medical laboratory scientific officers and (e) NHS administrative

  111
  staff, in percentage terms, in the most recent round of pay negotiations; how much each of these awards cost in cash terms in (i) Gloucestershire and (ii) nationally; what percentage of the increase in the NHS budget each of these awards took up (1) in Gloucestershire and (2) nationally; and if he will make a statement. [85647]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]In the last complete round of pay negotiations, hospital doctors were awarded 4.2 per cent. paid from 1 December 1998, with 2 per cent. (and 0.35 per cent. in respect of the value of pensions) paid from 1 April 1998. Nurses, speech therapists, medical laboratory scientific officers and National Health Service administrative and clerical staff received 3.8 per cent. from 1 December 1998 with 2 per cent. paid from 1 April. The additional cost of pay increases for all Hospital and Community Health Service staff in 1998–99, relative to pay in 1997–98, was £440 million in England; separate information for Gloucestershire is not available. This cost was 20 per cent. of the £2,196 million increase in net NHS funding in 1998–99.

  Out-of-hours Calls
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about GPs redirecting out-of-hours calls to the local hospital; and if he will make a statement. [86376]

  Mr. Denham
  We are not aware of any general representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the redirection of general practitioners out-of-hours calls to local hospitals.

  GPs may make arrangements with any organisation to provide out-of-hours primary care services on their behalf but they must satisfy themselves that the service provided

  Country

  Public healthcare expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  Total healthcare expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  Public healthcare expenditure ($ per capita)

  Total healthcare expenditure ($ per capita)

  Australia

  5.9

  8.5

  1,220

  1,775

  Austria

  5.7

  8.0

  1,258

  1,748

  Belgium

  6.8

  7.8

  1,498

  1,708

  Canada

  6.7

  9.6

  1,440

  2,065

  Czech Republic

  6.6

  7.2

  836

  904

  Denmark

  5.2

  8.0

  1,175

  1,802

  Finland

  5.8

  7.4

  1,082

  1,380

  France

  7.8

  9.7

  1,599

  1,983

  Germany

  8.2

  10.5

  1,783

  2,278

  Greece

  5.2

  6.8

  688

  888

  Hungary

  4.7

  6.7

  417

  602

  Iceland

  6.8

  8.2

  1,582

  1,893

  Ireland

  5.2

  7.0

  947

  1,276

  Italy

  5.5

  7.8

  1,106

  1,584

  Japan

  5.7

  7.2

  1,321

  1,677

  Korea

  2.1

  4.0

  282

  537

  Luxembourg

  6.2

  6.8

  1,980

  2,139

  Mexico

  2.7

  4.6

  212

  358

  Netherlands

  6.2

  8.6

  1,273

  1,766

  New Zealand

  5.6

  7.3

  974

  1,270

  Norway

  6.5

  7.9

  1,591

  1,928

  Poland

  4.6

  5.0

  344

  371

  Portugal

  4.9

  8.3

  641

  1,071

  Spain

  5.8

  7.4

  878

  1115

  Sweden

  7.2

  8.6

  1,389

  1,675

  Switzerland

  7.1

  10.2

  1,748

  2,499

  Turkey

  2.7

  3.8

  165

  232

  United Kingdom

  5.8

  6.9

  1,113

  1,317

  United States

  6.5

  14.0

  1,819

  3,898

  Source:

  OECD Health Databank 1998
  112
  is adequate and appropriate for their patients. They must ensure that any deputising arrangements which they have chosen continue to meet those standards.

  Decisions on whether to refer a patient for secondary care outside surgery hours will be based on clinical need—the same as for referrals which are made after a consultation during surgery hours.

  Devonshire Royal Hospital
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made with the sale of the Devonshire Royal Hospital in Buxton by NHS Estates. [86465]

  Mr. Denham
  Devonshire Royal Hospital, Buxton is contained within my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's retained estate and has been actively marketed for five months. This follows an innovative marketing strategy developed by Capitec (part of NHS Estates) and agents to maximise awareness throughout the United Kingdom and internationally. 800 sets of information have been sent out with 170 specific inquiries received to date.

  Spending (OECD Countries)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if comparative figures for the United Kingdom and other OECD countries are collated for health spending; and if he will make a statement. [86634]

  Mr. Denham
  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development produce figures for public and total health care spending for member countries. Two indicators of comparative public and total health care expenditure are given in the table. These are health care expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product and health care expenditure in dollars per capita. All figures are for 1996.

  Secure Units
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the medium secure units in operation in England and the date when each was commissioned. [87039]

  Mr. Hutton
  The list shows the number of medium secure units in the National Health Service in England. The date when each was commissioned is not held centrally.

  North West

  Scott Clinic, Rainhill

  Edenfield Centre, Salford

  Langdale Unit, Preston

  Calderstones, Whalley

  Scott House, Rochdale

  Auden Unit, Winwick

  Mary Dendy Unit, Macclesfield

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Hutton Centre (Adult) St. Luke's Hospital, Middlesbrough

  The Bamburgh Centre (Adult), Newcastle City Health NHS Trust

  Newton Lodge, Wakefield

  Humber Centre, Hull

  Trent

  Arnold Lodge, Leicester

  Wathwood Unit, Rotherham

  Eastern

  Norvic Clinic, Norwich

  The Larches, Gloucester Centre, Peterborough

  Broadlands Clinic, Little Plumstead Hospital, Norwich

  Runwell Hospital, Essex

  London

  Camlet Lodge, Enfield

  John Howard, Hackney

  Three Bridges, Ealing

  Cane Hill, Coulsdon

  Bracton Centre, Bexley

  Denis Hill Unit, Beckenham

  Shaftesbury Clinic and Longridge Clinic, Tooting

  South East

  Wallingford Clinic, Fairmile Hospital, Oxford

  Marlborough House, Milton Keynes

  House 4 Slade Hospital, Oxford

  Hellingly Hospital, Ashen Hill, Eastbourne and County

  Ravenswood, Hampshire

  Maidstone Priority—Trevor Gibbens Unit, West Kent

  West Midlands

  Reaside Clinic, Birmingham

  The Hatherton Centre, Stafford

  Janet Shaw Clinic, Birmingham

  South West

  Butler Clinic, Dawlish

  Fromeside Clinic, Bristol.

SCOTLAND

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in his Department and its associated bodies and agencies have benefited from the introduction of a national minimum wage. [86090]

  Dr. Reid
  In the main Scottish Office bargaining unit 181 casual members of staff received an increase in salary. One member of staff in the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency also received an increase in salary as did 45 staff in Historic Scotland. Information about the pay of staff outwith the Scottish Office and its Agencies is not held centrally.

  From 1 July 1999, the pay of staff below Senior Civil Service level in the Scottish Office and its Agencies will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the total amount that will be paid by students in tuition fees during 1998–99. [85888]

  Dr. Reid
  It is estimated that Scottish students undertaking full-time undergraduate courses in further and higher education institutions in the UK and EU students studying in Scotland will contribute £18 million to their tuition fees in 1998–99.

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

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people in his Department and its associated bodies and agencies have benefited from the introduction of a national minimum wage. [86093]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Since at 1 April 1999, there were no staff in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or in the Non-Departmental Bodies for which it is responsible, who were paid less than the equivalent of £3.60 per hour. None has benefited directly from the introduction of the National Minimum Wage.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the UN has taken recently to help resolve the conflict in Kashmir. [86466]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Secretary-General made clear to the Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India his concern over the fighting in Kashmir. Pakistan and India are also aware that the Secretary-General is willing to assist in their search for a just and lasting solution, if such involvement were acceptable to both countries.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the discussions held with the US Secretary of State on 21 November and 8 December 1998 concerning Senator Pinochet's arrest. [86457]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  It is not the practice of the Government to disclose the substance of their discussions with foreign authorities.

  European Flag
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which organisation holds copyright over the European 12 star flag. [86732]

  Ms Quin
  There is no formal copyright over the European flag.

  European Integration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the nature of the Government's input into the Council of Europe document, "Europe Under a Single Roof". [86646]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  "Europe Under a Single Roof" was the title of a book commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Council of Europe (CoE). The Council Secretariat had full responsibility for editorial control and publication. Member States Governments' involvement, including that of the UK, was confined to approving the project in principle when it was proposed to the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will define the requirement for furthering European integration, as set out in European Communities budget lines, as a basis to be fulfilled by applicants under those budget lines and determining the value of the award; and what is his policy on the requirement. [86723]

  Ms Quin
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to budget line A-302 "Grants to organisations advancing the idea of Europe", which has as its particular aim to cover expenditure on the activities and operation of organisations actively working toward European integration. The European Commission's guidelines for operating this budget line set out the objective this budget line contributes to, the eligibility criteria for organisations seeking funding from it, details of the selection criteria, financial conditions and the procedure to be followed when applying for a grant. A copy has been sent to the hon. Member directly, and a copy placed in the House Library. The Government support activities which help increase public awareness of the EU.

  Albania
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications of the EU project to collect and destroy weapons in the Gramsh district in Albania on the combat effectiveness of the KLA; and to what bodies EU funds will be made available. [86449]
  116
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) are the lead organisation on the pilot weapons collection project in Gramsh. The EU has allocated 500,000 euros to extend the successful project to other regions.

  The Department for International Development (DFID) has funded one ammunition technical officer as part of the project and have agreed in principle to fund another. They have also agreed to fund a feasibility study on destruction of the weapons.

  The aim of the project is to reduce the number of weapons in circulation among the civilian population in Albania. It is not targeted at the Kosovo Liberation Army.

  Belgian Manure Decree
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the funding of European Communities payments under the Belgian manure decree. [86447]

  Ms Quin
  I understand no Community money has been used to finance the Belgian manure decree, and that the Commission is currently investigating whether the decree contravenes EU state aids rules.

  Internal Histories
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list his Department's Internal Histories, indicating which are not due for accelerated release. [86363]

  Mr. Hoon
  No comprehensive list exists of internal histories held by the FCO on an ad hoc basis for many years. Those over 30 years old, such as a 1962 study by the Historical Adviser of British Policy in the Relinquishment of Abadan in 1951, have been routinely released to the Public Record Office (FO 370/2694). As part of an open government initiative, the FCO began in 1998 to identify internal histories scattered across the FCO archive and assess them for publication and accelerated release. The first practical result of this initiative will be the publication and release early next year of the report written in 1972 by Sir Con O'Neill on the negotiations for entry into the EEC.

  Titles of other internal histories remain classified until proper consideration has been given to their suitability for accelerated release or publication.

  Overseas Posts (E-mail and Internet Links)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 May 1999,Official Report, column 26, to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), if he will place a list in the Library of (a) Internet and (b) e-mail sites for his offices overseas. [86647]

  Mr. Hoon
  The website addresses and public e-mail addresses of FCO Missions overseas are listed on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk) under "British Diplomatic Missions".

  Schengen
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of
  117
  17 May 1999, Official Report, column 239, if the subject matter covered in the letter from the Dutch Government of 16 July 1997 on the Amsterdam Treaty negotiations has been referred to in the content of the Home Secretary's proposal to join elements of the Schengen system. [86717]

  Ms Quin
  No, it has not.

  Commonwealth Institute
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in determining the future status of the Commonwealth Institute. [86916]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Commonwealth Institute have not yet reached a final agreement on the financial arrangements which will underpin the plan for the Institute to become a company limited by guarantee, while remaining a charity. Both sides hope that the remaining differences can be resolved soon and are working together to that end.

  ASSIST Programme
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the performance of the ASSIST programme in its first year; and what changes to the programme are planned. [87285]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As my hon. Friend will be aware from my announcement in the House on 26 March 1998,Official Report, columns 235–36, the ASSIST programme was established on 1 April 1998 to replace the UK Military Training Assistance Scheme (UKMTAS), with the main purpose of re-focusing support to the Government' s priority of promoting respect for human rights and good governance.

  Notable results in the first year included: a course in China run together with Save the Children Fund, designed to fight child trafficking; direct human rights training for the Russian military; a workshop on conscientious objection in Novograd; and a women and children protection course in the Philippines.

  The transition to new objectives made a good start in the financial year 1998–99 with 84 per cent. of spending being compatible with the new ASSIST criteria. For the next financial year, as pre-existing commitments reduce we shall be increasing this percentage and further refining the ASSIST criteria.

  New objectives will include:
  The addition of an objective to promote the re-establishment of appropriately structured and armed forces in post conflict situations (internal and external) and in newly democratized countries;
  Promotion of the security of the Overseas Territories;
  The inclusion of training for peacekeeping in accordance with UN guidance;
  Co-operation with NGOs and other representatives of civil society on security sector assistance;
  Increased emphasis on counter proliferation and combating small arms trafficking.
  118
  Enhancement of the professionalism of the armed forces has been withdrawn as an independent objective within the criteria.

  We have set up an ASSIST Challenge Fund to be used for flagship projects. To enable greater continuity and planning, we have agreed that ASSIST will continue for at least 3 years. We are also liaising with the MOD and DFID to ensure that ASSIST's programmes complement those Departments' programmes in related areas.

  A copy of the new ASSIST criteria will be placed in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of an energy tax on the UK glasshouse industry. [86106]

  Mr. Rooker
  The impact of the climate change levy on any one industry, firm or plant will depend on the tax rates set for different sectors. Final rates for the climate change levy will not be set until the Finance Bill 2000, so it is not possible to produce definitive figures at this stage. The Government will consider the issue of competitiveness when setting the final rates for the climate change levy.

  Energy Products Directive
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the policies of European Union Agriculture Ministers in respect of the proposed energy tax on the horticultural industry; and what reports he has received of plans to exempt the industry in individual member states. [86050]

  Mr. Rooker
  The scope of the proposed EC Energy Products Directive, and the minimum rates of tax which might apply, are still under discussion. It is known that a number of member states have fundamental objections to certain aspects of the Energy Products Directive and there are a number of technical points on which member states are seeking further clarification. These will be discussed further at future meetings of ECOFIN.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had with quarantine kennel owners since he announced his proposals for reform of quarantine law relating to pets. [86278]

  Mr. Rooker
  Dialogue with representatives of the quarantine industry is continuing and we are pleased that they have joined the Pet Travel Scheme Advisory Group established by my Department.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make rabies vaccines for pet dogs and cats freely available to pet owners preparing to travel abroad and return to Britain without quarantine; and if he will make a statement. [85747]

  Mr. Rooker
  Rabies vaccine will be made freely available in due course.
  119
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to submit the drafts of proposed amendments to the secondary legislation on quarantine to the European Commission for inclusion in EU law. [85745]

  Mr. Rooker
  The European Commission have been sent a copy of the report of the Advisory Group on Quarantine. Decisions on whether to make proposals for EU law are a matter for the Commission.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of the draft of proposed amendments to the secondary legislation on quarantine; and if he will make a statement. [85746]

  Mr. Rooker
  Drafting of a Statutory Instrument providing for the Pet Travel Scheme pilot arrangements is still under way. Copies of the draft will be placed in the Library of the House when work has further advanced.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to approve rabies antibody sera-testing for pet dogs and cats; and if he will make a statement. [85748]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Advisory Group on Quarantine recommended that under the new arrangements it proposed for pets, laboratories should be accredited to perform serological tests according to a quality procedure specified and operated by the British authorities. Once the Government have approved a list of laboratories for serological testing under the Pet Travel Scheme (which is expected soon), a list will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to instruct his advisers on quarantine reform to ensure that all new implementation proposals comply with European Community law, with particular reference to Articles 30–36 of the Treaty of Rome. [85744]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is always the Government's intention that their proposals should comply with European Community law.

  Bacillus Thuringiensis
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what discussions he has had with users of Bacillus thuringiensis in respect of its safety; and what plans he has for future discussions; [86216]

  (2) what plans he has to issue guidance and regulations concerning the use of Bacillus thuringiensis spores by organic farmers and forestry workers; [86214]

  (3) what representations he has received from producers of Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria concerning its safety. [86215]

  Mr. Rooker
  One strain of Bacillus thuringiensis, a naturally occurring bacterium, is specified as the active ingredient in a number of insecticide products approved for use on ornamental plants, vegetables, fruit crops and fruit trees in the UK. No products containing Bacillus thuringiensis have approval for use in forestry in this country.
  120
  Following recent reports of possible adverse effects from a particular strain of Bacillus thuringiensis (not approved for use in the UK), the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) has demanded information from the main producer of approved products on whether those effects could arise from the use of the Bacillus thuringiensis strains approved in the UK. Their representations are awaited and will be promptly evaluated.

  The Government have not yet been asked for, or sought, discussions with users of Bacillus thuringiensis, but we will consider whether this would be appropriate in the light of any information the producer provides.

  Information to help users use pesticides correctly is given on each product's label—the content of which must comply with any requirements set by Government. If additional restrictions need to be placed on the use of Bacillus thuringiensis, approval holders will be required to add these to their labels.

  All pesticides are regulated to provide protection for people—including pesticide users—and the environment. Detailed scientific information supplied by applicant companies is evaluated by the Government and their independent advisers; only if a pesticide can be used without unacceptable risk to people and the environment will Ministers approve it. All approved pesticides are subject to routine review and may be reviewed at any time if particular concerns arise.

  Pet Transport Scheme
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what timetable he plans to follow for developing a pilot scheme for the new pet transport system; and when he expects to announce (i) the list of approved laboratories in the EU and rabies-free islands, (b) the vaccines, (iii) the identification system and (iv) the certification format. [86105]

  Mr. Rooker
  A pilot project will be in place as soon as possible (and in any event by next April), and the main scheme will be in place by April 2001. Announcements will be made about the arrangements for microchipping, vaccination, blood testing and health certification as these details are settled.

  Cattle Movement Service
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many passports for imported animals have been processed each month by the British Cattle Movement Service from September 1998 to the latest month for which figures are available. [85732]

  Mr. Rooker
  The number of cattle passports for imported animals processed by the British Cattle Movement Service each month from September 1998 to May 1999 is as follows:

  Month

  Number of imported animal passports processed

  September 1998

  0

  October 1998

  444

  November 1998

  713

  December 1998

  728

  January 1999

  684

  February 1999

  505

  121

  Month

  Number of imported animal passports processed

  March 1999

  899

  April 1999

  2,258

  May 1999

  1,608

  Total for period

  7,839

  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many passports for imported animals are currently awaiting processing at the British Cattle Movement Service; and how many working days, on average, it takes to process each animal. [85733]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are currently 1,005 applications for passports for imported animals awaiting processing. Applications for imported animals which do not require the British Cattle Movement Service to seek further information or supporting documentation from the applicant take, on average, 7 to 10 working days to process. Applications that must be referred back to the applicant will take longer than this.

  CAP (Beef)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the Berlin summit agreement for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy relating to beef. [86024]

  Mr. Rooker
  Following the conclusion of the Berlin summit on Agenda 2000, a summary of the CAP Reform agreement was sent to interested organisations on 22 April 1999. We have received representations from those involved with the beef sector, including consumer groups. These representations are in addition to regular on-going contact with representatives from the beef sector. We will be consulting on all discretionary elements of the Agenda 2000 agreement in the Summer.

  Broiler Chickens
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many broiler chickens slaughtered in the United Kingdom were rejected as unfit for human consumption in (i) 1997 and (ii) 1998. [86208]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is as follows:

  Total throughput

  Unfit for human consumption (in whole or in part)

  1997

  Great Britain

  709,291,374

  8,705,858

  Northern Ireland

  60,270,049

  721,859

  1998

  Great Britain

  713,047,348

  8,339,457

  Northern Ireland

  61,774,233

  544,907

  Note:
  The total throughput figures provided for Great Britain for 1997 and 1998 are not directly comparable, owing to the method for collecting these data having changed slightly.

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements are in place for monitoring the safety of feeding genetically modified feeds to animals. [86306]

  Mr. Rooker
  In relation to its role in considering whether to recommend release to the environment and/or marketing consent for genetically modified organisms, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) assess and advise on aspects of use in animal feed. The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) addresses any impact of the animal feed use of genetically modified plants on food for the human consumer. The Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs, due to be set up very shortly, will also have an important role, liaising as necessary with other committees.

  Seed Marketing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the basis of his policy on measures set out in 1999/305/EC (OJ L118/63, of 6.5.99), on repealing restrictions on the marketing of seeds; and if he will make a statement. [86718]

  Mr. Rooker
  Article 15 of Council Directive 70/457, on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species, provides for member states to be granted derogations to prohibit in their territory the marketing of seed and propagating material of varieties which they consider not to be distinct, stable or sufficiently uniform (DUS).

  Commission Decision 1999/305/EC repealed various such derogations which had been granted to the United Kingdom. In most cases the varieties themselves, or similar ones which had raised concerns regarding DUS, no longer appeared on the common catalogue while, for the remaining varieties, no certified seed had been produced in the UK in the previous twelve years. The UK therefore saw no reason to maintain the derogations and was content with their repeal. No genetically modified varieties are involved.

  Meat Hygiene
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how the word veterinaire is being interpreted by his Department, with respect to the enforcement of EU hygiene directives; [86471]

  (2) what training (a) environmental health officers and (b) meat inspectors would require to enable them to supervise meat hygiene inspections. [86472]

  Mr. Rooker
  EU meat hygiene rules lay down specific requirements about the level and frequency of supervision of licensed meat plants. Such functions are assigned to "official veterinarians", defined in those rules as"the veterinarian designated by the central competent authority of the Member State".
  Although the EU meat hygiene rules do not define "veterinarian", the EU Directives on the mutual recognition of veterinary qualifications and on veterinary training (78/1026/EEC and 78/1027/EEC) clearly define veterinarians in terms of named qualifications for each member state (which other member

  123
  states must recognise) and in terms of the subjects that their veterinary courses must have covered and the length of training.

  Given the aim of the EU meat hygiene rules (namely, to prescribe minimum standards of health inspections in licensed meat plants) and the functions allocated to official veterinarians under those rules, my Department takes the view that references in those rules to "official veterinarian" must be construed consistently with the EU rules on veterinary qualifications. In short, an "official veterinarian" for meat hygiene purposes must be a veterinarian whose veterinary qualifications meet the terms of the relevant Directives. As such, environmental health officers and meat inspectors would be eligible to supervise meat hygiene inspections only if they were also fully qualified veterinarians.

  Animal Feedstuffs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he takes to ensure that animal feedstuffs are not contaminated with additives injurious to human health. [86467]

  Mr. Rooker
  Only additives on an EU approved list are permitted for use in animal feedingstuffs. Where appropriate, maximum levels and other conditions apply. Additives are included in the list on the basis of an extensive assessment by experts for safety, quality and efficacy.

  UK Regulations, implementing another EU measure, require the approval or registration of premises manufacturing, selling or using feed additives. This ensures that only premises that comply with detailed quality and safety standards can produce or use additives in feedingstuffs.

  Independent Arbiter (English Farmers)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will appoint an independent arbiter for English farmers in order to rule on disputes between English farmers and his Department on similar lines to the one to be set up for Scottish farmers. [86416]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 14 June 1999]My right hon. Friend the Minister is considering the possible implications for English farmers of the undertaking by the Scottish Executive to introduce an independent appeal mechanism for Scottish farmers suffering penalties in relation to their claims for subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In cases where CAP subsidies are reduced or refused, farmers already have the options of seeking Judicial Review or of asking their Member of Parliament to raise the matter with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Catering Levy
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what proposals he has for public consultation relating to proposals to introduce a levy upon those providing outside catering facilities at(a) amateur and (b) professional sporting venues; [86972]
  124
  (2) what assessment his Department has carried out of the financial consequences for the sports concerned of the imposition of a levy on those providing outside catering at (a) amateur and (b) professional sporting venues. [86973]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 14 June 1999]As announced on 11 June, the Government have decided not to proceed with their proposals for a levy on food premises.

  Food Standards Select Committee
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to respond to the report of the Food Standards Select Committee [87298]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have today published the Government's response to the Select Committee (Cm 4377).

  I have also placed in the Library of the House a summary of other responses to the consultation on the draft Food Standards Bill.

  Genetically Modified Material
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 190, when he expects a de minimis threshold for the presence of genetically modified material in food to be established; and if he will make a statement. [86772]

  Mr. Rooker
  The European Commission have undertaken to provide a proposal for such a threshold as soon as possible. The Government and officials are continuing to press for this to be published at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Genetically Modified Soya
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure that imported foods which contain genetically modified soya have been subject to safety tests equivalent to those which would apply to such foods originating in the United Kingdom. [86748]

  Mr. Rooker
  Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) soya, modified to be tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate, was assessed and cleared for safety by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes in February 1994. It is the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that foods containing only approved GM soya are imported and sold in the United Kingdom.

  National List Applications
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the number of test sites needed for national list applications for maize, oilseed rape, fodder and sugar beet in each year to 2003. [86485]

  Mr. Rooker
  The projected numbers of test sites to be sown per year for each variety from autumn 1999 to spring 2003 are listed in the table. Different varieties of a species entered in the same year are normally tested at the same sites, although the entry of genetically modified varieties may result in separate trial sites being sown. Test site requirements are subject to review and while no major changes to the numbers given are anticipated it is not possible to forecast the outcome of such reviews.
  125

  Crop

  Number of sites per variety/year

  Maize

  5

  Winter oilseed rape

  11

  Spring oilseed rape

  4

  Fodder beet

  1

  Sugar beet

  6

CABINET OFFICE

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many times Ministers in his Department met their counterparts in the United States Government between 1 January and 1 June 1998; and if he will list the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved on each occasion, and the names of the US counterparts at each meeting. [86290]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  There were no meetings between Cabinet Office Ministers and their US counterparts between 1 January and 1 June 1998.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to his answer of 13 May 1999,Official Report, columns 201–02, on Ministerial meetings, if he will list the Departments and names of the senior officials whom the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met in Washington between 21 and 24 June 1998. [86296]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The programme for the visit to Washington on 21 to 24 June by my right hon. Friend then Chancellor of the Duchy included meetings with:Morley Winograd, senior policy adviser to Vice-President Gore; Bob Stone and John Kamensky, National Partnership for Reinventing Government. Comparison of public sector reform initiatives in the USA and UK;
  Bob Wenzel, Internal Revenue Service. IRS experience of electronic delivery of services;
  Stan Solloway, Diane Disney, Cindy Bogner, Bill Mounts from the Department of Defense. Defence Department experience of the "Reinventing Government" initiative;
  Nye Stevens, Director, Federal Workforce Management Issues, General Accounting Office. Implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act;
  Congressman Steve Horn and Congresswoman Caroline Maloney. Congressional oversight of US Federal Government reform and Federal Government handling of the Year 2000 problem.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend chaired a seminar "Citizens and the State: Transatlantic Approaches to Governance", organised by the European Institute, Washington. This brought together Ministers and senior policy-makers from the European Union, the USA and the OECD.

  Duchy of Lancaster
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if all hon. Members representing constituencies within the County Palatine are to receive invitations to the celebrations marking the 600th anniversary of the Duchy. [86713]
  126
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  My hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) have been invited to attend functions in their constituencies associated with The Queen's visit to Lancashire next month in connection with the 600th anniversary of the Duchy's link with the Crown.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list those thoroughfares along which he is entitled to pass in a vehicle in his capacity as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to which the general public is denied equivalent access. [86714]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I am not aware of any such thoroughfares.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will estimate the average amount of time which he devotes each week to Duchy matters. [87004]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  On average, approximately 5 per cent. of my time.

  Interdepartmental Group on Genetic Modification Technology
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what is the present role of the Interdepartmental Group on Genetic Modification Technology. [86887]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Interdepartmental Group on Genetic Modification Technology (IGGMOT) is an official level group which provides a forum for coordination of policy on genetic modification technology between Departments.

  Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what is his estimate of the current number and percentage of under 25-year-olds who have access to(a) heroin and (b) cocaine; and if he will set targets for these figures for each of the next 10 years. [86954]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  There are no figures at this time which relate to drug use specifically among the under-25 age group. Figures from a recently published national Health Education Authority survey undertaken in 1996 show that approximately 13 per cent. of 11 to 35-year-olds claim to have been offered heroin, with approximately 1 per cent. claiming to have used it; and approximately 14 per cent. of 11 to 35-year-olds claim to have been offered cocaine, with approximately 3 per cent. claiming to have used it.

  I have no plans to set annual targets for reduced access to heroin and cocaine among young people. However, in the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator's first annual report and plan, I published a target to reduce substantially the proportion of people under 25 reporting use of illegal drugs in the last month and previous year, and to reduce the proportion of young people using the drugs which cause the greatest harm—heroin and cocaine—by 50 per cent. by 2008 and by 25 per cent. by 2005.

  I will, however, shortly be commissioning new research to establish more robust baseline information for this year, from which I will measure our future success.
  127
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will visit(a) the Netherlands to assess that country's claims of a reduction in heroin use and (b) Switzerland to assess that country's reported reduction in drug-related crime. [86946]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I have no plans at the moment to visit either the Netherlands or Switzerland, but will continue to monitor their anti-drug strategies.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 1999,Official Report, column 290, on biotechnology, what account he took of (a) the Government's freedom of information policy and (b) the implications for public confidence in the Government's policies on biotechnology, in his decision not to provide further details in respect of questions asked about the Biodiversity Presentation Group. [86889]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Biotechnology Presentation Group is an internal working group. In line with the practice of successive Administrations, it is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of internal discussion, advice to Ministers, specific meetings or their content. This principle is reflected in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the cost of increasing the income level below which students are exempt from tuition fees by(a) £2,000, (b) £4,000, (c) £6,000, (d) £8,000 and (e) £10,000 for students resident in (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales, (iii) Northern Ireland and (iv) England. [84061]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 13 May 1999]The estimated costs for students ordinarily resident in England and Wales and EU students in English and Welsh institutions, and for Scottish resident students and EU students in Scottish institutions, are given in the table. Estimates are not available for Northern Ireland as suitable information on levels of contributions is not readily available.

  Costs of increasing income level below which students are exempt from paying tuition fees—2000–01

  £ million

  Increase in income level

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  £2,000

  5

  1

  £4,000

  20

  2

  £6,000

  35

  5

  £8,000

  60

  11

  £10,000

  85

  17

  The costs have been estimated for the year 2001–02 by which time, under the current arrangements, virtually all students will have a liability to contribute to their tuition according to means. It has been assumed that existing contributions for all other income levels above the increased income level below which students are exempt
  128
  remain the same. If the contribution scales were to be recalculated on the basis of increased income thresholds then there would be further knock-on costs, depending on how the policy is implemented, on the proportion of tuition fees paid by those not fully exempt and on other assessed elements of student support, and so the financial impact would be significantly higher.

  Refrigerants
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy to change departmental refrigeration and air-conditioning systems to operate on not-in-kind refrigerants. [86165]

  Mr. Mudie
  It is already the policy of both the DfEE and the Employment Service not to purchase refrigeration and air-conditioning systems containing ozone depleting substances such as CFCs and HCFCs.

  Failing Colleges
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated from the schools sector on the policy of naming and shaming failing colleges. [86171]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Government have no specific policy of "naming and shaming" further education colleges with poor provision. We may, however, comment on adverse inspection reports or other evidence which is already in the public domain.

  The Government are strongly committed to raising standards in further education. We will continue to give praise to successful colleges who are performing well and will emphasise how much we value excellence through the announcement of further Beacon Colleges. However, we will not tolerate unacceptable standards, or hesitate to intervene where colleges are failing their students and communities.

  Examination Marking
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria will be used to determine which schools and colleges will participate in the pilot project on the return of GCSE and A-Level exam scripts. [86404]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 11 June 1999]A total of about 200 centres in England will pilot the four GCSE models. Centres were selected at random and their agreement sought prior to the introduction of the pilots. At A-Level, two syllabuses from each of the five Awarding Bodies were chosen. To keep the pilots manageable, syllabuses with entries of around one thousand candidates, and involving no more than one hundred centres, were selected.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what will be the timetable for the return of GCSE and A-Level exam scripts to students under the pilot project. [86403]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 11 June 1999]The timetable will depend upon the particular model being piloted. At A-Level, photocopied scripts will arrive on the day the results are issued—Thursday 19 August.
  129
  At GCSE, four different models will be piloted. Under three of these models, scripts will be available from Tuesday 1 September. Under the fourth, where scripts will be available only on request, scripts are not expected to arrive before Friday 4 September. The pilots will provide a framework within which centres should operate the pilots, rather than imposing rules, so timings may vary between centres.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the estimated cost of the pilot project to return GCSE and A-Level exam scripts to students; and what estimate his Department has made of the total cost of a general return of such exam scripts. [86405]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 11 June 1999]The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) will be conducting the pilot exercises, from a budget of £250,000. One of the objectives of these pilots is to assess the costs associated with each model before any decisions on wider implementation are made.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if guidance to those marking exam scripts will be changed in those areas participating in the pilot project for the return of GCSE and A-Level scripts. [86402]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 11 June 1999]All GCSE and GCE Awarding Body examiners are bound by a Code of Practice, developed in consultation with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. The Code provides a basis for high standards in all aspects of the examining process. There are no plans to change this guidance ahead of this summer's examinations.

  Investors in People
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will announce the outcome of the Quinquennial Review of Investors in People UK. [87297]

  Mr. Mudie
  Against the background of the established practice of carrying out quinquennial policy and financial reviews of non-Departmental Public Bodies, the Department conducted a thorough review of Investors in People UK during 1998.

  The first stage was a policy review of whether the functions were still needed, and also what framework was most efficient to deliver them. It was concluded that Investors in People UK should continue to carry out the functions with an NDPB framework.

  Stage 2 consisted of a financial management survey of the organisation. The financial management survey, carried out for the Department by external consultants Pannell Kerr Forster, concluded that the Company achieves value for money in Grant-in-Aid terms and has achieved excellent performance against its objectives.

  The combined quinquennial review is published today and a copy is being placed in the Library. Further copies can be obtained on request from: Jane Binney, Department for Education and Employment, Workplace Learning Division, Area Ebb, Moorfoot, Sheffield S1 4PQ, telephone number 0114 259 4232.

  Key Stage 2
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what percentage of 11-year-old(a) male, (b) female and (c) male and female pupils in each local education authority attained (i) Level 3 or better, (ii) Level 4 or better and (iii) Level 5 or better, in the 1998 Key Stage 2 tests for mathematics; and what was the average level per pupil; [87016]

  (2) what percentage of 11-year-old pupils in each local education authority in maintained schools were entered for the 1998 Key Stage 2 SAT tests in mathematics but were absent; [87017]

  (3) what percentage of 11-year-old (a) male, (b) female and (c) male and female pupils, in each local education authority attained (i) Level 3 or better, (ii) Level 4 or better and (iii) Level 5 or better, in the 1998 Key Stage 2 tests in the (1) writing, (2) reading and (3) combined test for English; and what was the average level per pupil; [87019]

  (4) what percentage of 11-year-old pupils in each local education authority in maintained schools were entered for the 1998 Key Stage 2 SAT tests in (a) writing, (b) reading and (c) both for English but were absent. [87020]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Aggregate School Budgets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local authority the planned expenditure per pupil at 1998–99 prices from aggregate school budgets in(a) maintained primary schools and (b) maintained secondary schools in 1999–2000. [87015]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information for the financial year 1999–2000 is still being collected and checked by the Department. We will publish authoritative data showing the plans of the authorities, including the amounts to be held back centrally, later this month. I will write to the hon. Member when the figures he requests are available, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library.

  Employment Service Programme Centres (Wheelchair Access)
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many Employment Service programme centres there are in Wales; and how many are accessible to disabled persons using wheelchairs; [87041]

  (2) how many Employment Service programme centres there are in England; and how many are accessible to disabled persons using wheelchairs. [87042]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There are 178 Programme Centres in England and 30 in Wales, all of which are accessible to disabled people using wheelchairs or have alternative arrangements to ensure they have adequate access to all of the provision.

  Sport (Coaching)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he has taken to target coaching support to those schools where sporting commitment is below average. [86686]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the Department's Specialist Schools programme, Sports Colleges provide specialist support to local schools to help raise the standards of teaching and learning in physical education and sport. This can be in the form of in-service training for teachers or the sharing of specialist sports equipment, facilities and other resources. Sports Colleges also act as local centres of sports development and are able to disseminate good practice in their geographical area.

  In addition, the Coaching for Teachers Programme, funded by Sport England and co-ordinated by the National Coaching Foundation, provides opportunities for teachers involved in the delivery of extra-curricular school sport to improve their teaching and coaching, update their knowledge by attending Governing Body courses, and obtain qualifications. Over 11,000 teachers have received training through this scheme.

  The Government also fund Sport England, whose Active Schools programme ensures quality sports provision in schools through a variety of initiatives, which include coaching materials and training, such as TOP Play, BT TOP Sport, Sportsmark and Sportsmark Gold awards and the Sporting Ambassadors scheme.

  Anti-drugs Education
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the evidence held by the Department of the efficacy of anti-drugs education programmes in reducing drug use. [86957]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The DfEE's drug education good practice guidance, published in November last year, brings together the findings of Ofsted, and the experience of health professionals and others, and outlines already published research on the effectiveness of drug education in schools. In addition, the Department has published two booklets summarising a number of innovative drug education projects supported through the Department's Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST) programme in 1995–96 and 1996–97 respectively. They offer information on the findings of a range of different drug education projects set up by local education authorities during those two years.

  Sporting Provision
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he has taken to ensure that sporting provision is set out in schools' annual reports and prospectuses. [86687]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Sport is an essential part of young people's education, playing a key role in their physical and social development. Department for Education and Employment guidance makes it clear that prospectuses and annual reports should include references to sporting aims and provisions, so as to ensure that parents receive a complete picture of the school.

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

Middle East Peace Process
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultations they are proposing to carry out concerning the Middle East peace process.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we believe that there should be a recommitment to negotiations from all parties in the process. Once a new Israeli government have been formed, we would expect the Wye River Memorandum to be implemented and for there to be a resumption of negotiations on all tracks. We are actively discussing how we and the EU can contribute to this resumption with partners in Europe, the US and in the region.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, while welcoming my noble friend's response as well as the happy election of Ehud Barak of Israel, may I ask: will she extend the consultations regarding peace and goodwill in the Middle East to Iran? Will the Government protest most vigorously at the recent arrest of 13 Jewish people in Iran, including the Chief Rabbi of Shiraz? Do the Government recognise that these people are in grave danger of execution and that urgent representations by our newly appointed ambassador and the Foreign Secretary would be most appropriate?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, initially news of these arrests was a little hazy and it was difficult to establish the truth. There are a number of different and conflicting rumours. We have been in regular contact with the Agvdas Israel Organisation both in the United Kingdom and the United States through our mission in New York. More reliable accounts indicate that 13 people have been detained. Last week it became apparent from media reports in Iran that those people were being accused of espionage. Before the news broke the Gennan EU presidency was, on 20th May, on a visit to Iran and expressed the concern of EU member states about these detentions. This is due to be followed up with an EU démarche in Tehran. We have told the Iranians of our concern through their ambassador in London and have pressed for the detainees to be treated fairly, as have our European partners. We shall continue to monitor the situation, as the noble Lord suggests, and take further action as necessary.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the continued construction of settlements and roads in the West Bank is bound to undermine the final status of
126
the negotiations that are due to start very shortly? Will Her Majesty's Government make their views absolutely clear to the present Israeli caretaker Government and any future government that may be formed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we continue to regard the settlements as illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. The Berlin declaration in March of this year urges all parties to refrain from unilateral acts, including settlement activity. The Prime Minister included a recommendation for a freeze on settlement activity in his message of congratulations to Mr Barak on his election.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister believe that it will still be possible to adhere to the 12-month period for completion of the negotiations set in the Berlin European Council declaration in March of this year? Since it is not possible to resume these negotiations until Mr Barak has formed his government, in the meanwhile can progress be made on the other issues in the Wye River Memorandum, such as the Gaza industrial estate and airport?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that we must wait for Mr Barak to form his government which he must declare to the Knesset by 9th July. I believe it is sensible, given the enormous delicacy of a number of these issues—we have just spoken about the settlements—and the other pressures on the Palestinian side, as I am sure all noble Lords are aware, to ensure that the government are firmly in place, that Mr Barak announce his Ministers to the Knesset and then take forward the process from there.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I return to the plight of the 13 Jews detained in Iran. Does the noble Baroness agree that the situation is such that representation at the highest possible level, certainly at Foreign Secretary level, is now most urgent? Is there any likelihood that that will be forthcoming?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have made representations through the Iranian ambassador in London. If the situation is not satisfactorily resolved the whole House can rest assured that representations will be made at an appropriate level. I hope that what I have said indicates that we have acted both bilaterally through the ambassador here in London and through our European partners with the démarche. This matter is being taken very seriously. In response to my noble friend Lord Janner I said that the Government were monitoring the situation and would take further action as necessary.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the more private the consultations and contents, the more likely they are to succeed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord says. It is often easy to forget that negotiations through a

127
loudhailer are not the most effective form of negotiation. Often what is said forcefully in private has a great deal more effect.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, what steps have the Government taken since Mr Barak's election to make it clear that they oppose any unilateral action or any attempts to impose conditionality by either party which would pre-judge or pre-determine the outcome of the agreed negotiating process and which would undermine the ability to negotiate permanent status issues?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. It is vital that there is not a pre-empting of the process. Part of what we have done I addressed in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton: that when the Prime Minister wrote to Mr Barak following the election he urged upon him a freeze on all settlement activity. On the other side of the coin, if I may put it that way, we have made no secret of our view that a unilateral declaration of statehood from the Palestinians would be unhelpful. We welcome the Palestinian Central Council communiqué about this as a sign of Palestine's continuing commitment to negotiations. We have sought to engage on both sides; and we have been closely concerned to ensure that we engage with all the interested countries.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I take the point about the importance of confidentiality on the content of negotiations. However, can the Minister tell us anything about the status of the mission undertaken recently by her colleague, my noble friend Lord Levy, to Israel as an emissary apparently of the Prime Minister? Is it intended in the near future to send any of our Moslem colleagues to visit the Palestinians?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend will know that my noble friend Lord Levy visited Syria from 9th to 10th April and Jordan and Syria from 5th to 10th June. He went as a personal representative of the Prime Minister. The visits were aimed at strengthening our bilateral relations with those two countries. As I am sure my noble friend knows, my noble friend Lord Levy has good contacts in the region. Those contacts can be beneficial to the United Kingdom in the context of our relations in the region. His first visit to Syria took place when the late Derek Fatchett was Minister. My honourable friend Mr Hoon is in the process of exploring possible dates for his first visit to the region as a Minister.

Welsh Assembly and UK Government: Concordats
2.45 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What concordats have been agreed between the Welsh Assembly and government departments.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, none as yet. While concordats are at an advanced stage of drafting, it will be for the Assembly to agree them with the appropriate government department. I expect this process to occur in the relatively near future.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, does he have confidence that sufficient progress will be made with these concordats, which cover a considerable number of fields, to ensure that there will be smooth continuation of effective government in Wales with the transfer of powers to the Assembly on 1st July?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am confident that arrangements will be effectively in hand for the smooth continuation of government. I agree with what the noble Lord said. That is extremely important. We have to bear in mind that the Assembly had its first sitting only on 12th May. The noble Lord and I both know that Her Majesty opened the Assembly on 26th May. It is early days.
There is the additional complication, welcome to both the noble Lord and myself I hope, that before the Assembly can approve them the concordats have to be translated so that they are available in bilingual form.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can I have the assurance of the Government that a register of concordats will be maintained in the Library?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am willing to give my noble friend's suggestion the most careful consideration. It is intended that the concordats will be published except perhaps in terms of commercial confidentiality which can be justified. I shall relay my noble friend's suggestion to the appropriate quarter.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, has the concept of a concordat been accepted by an important department; namely the Treasury? Will the Treasury recognise such agreements being made by other departments? That applies also to the situation in Scotland.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we anticipate a memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom Government and the three devolved bodies together setting out general post-evolutionary principles of operation. I have no doubt that our colleagues and well loved friends in the Treasury will play their necessary part in that.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington suggested placing the concordats in the Library. Might it be better to produce them as White Papers and to make them available through the Stationery Office to the public, and to Members of both Houses through the Printed Paper Office and the Vote Office?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think that is necessary. These are agreements between the

129
devolved bodies and central government. If, as a generality, they are to be published they are available for public scrutiny and comment.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is it considered that concordats in Welsh placed in the Library will remain confidential?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, they will not be confidential because my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and I will have read them.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, will the concordats to be made between the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly be debated in this House of Parliament?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, no, that is not the intention. The relevant territorial Secretary of State will be authorised on behalf of the UK Parliament to enter into those agreements. It is then a matter for the devolved bodies as to what they want to debate, in what detail and in what form. It is entirely a matter for the Assembly, but I would expect that some of the concordats or memoranda of understanding will be debated.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the Minister has been most helpful, but can he tell the House a little more about what has been referred to in the other place as the overarching concordat dealing with the relationship between the Welsh Assembly and the UK representative in Brussels? What is the further scope of that concordat, and does it involve Scotland too?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to assist your Lordships in answering that question. The overarching concordats—they are plural—relate to questions of Europe, international relations, statistics and inward investment between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved bodies. That is part of the continuing process of debate and negotiation taking place at the moment.

Spaceguard Programme
2.50 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw Lord Tanlaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to form a national spaceguard centre, as part of a European spaceguard programme, to improve the assessment and probability factor of impact hazard of a near earth object on the continent of Europe or in the seas surrounding it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government take the potential threat of impact by near earth objects very seriously, but we regard it as an issue where a common international approach is essential. The UK therefore supported a recent workshop on monitoring programmes for asteroids and comets in Turin earlier this month, which was sponsored by the European Space Agency
130
and the Spaceguard Foundation among others. The European Space Agency is also mounting a study to produce a system for the co-ordination or the worldwide capability in near earth object research
At the present moment, the Government have no plans to set up a national spaceguard agency, but we will consider the possibility when we receive the report of the Turin meeting. Any additional work undertaken in the UK must have benefit over and above that being taken internationally.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for Science for that Answer, which I shall study with interest. Is he aware of the most recent astronomical data which forecast that a potentially hazardous asteroid designated 1999 AN 10, weighing approximately 2 million tonnes and a kilometre in size, will miss the earth by only 24,000 miles on 7th August 2027 and will possibly impact on its return in 2044?
Is he also aware that, unlike a NATO missile, which travels at approximately 500 miles an hour on a pre-programmed trajectory, AN 10 is approaching earth at 25,000 miles an hour on a chaotic orbit and will require more detailed observational data before the International Astronomical Union can definitely certify it as harmless in the years following its approach in the year 2027?
May I therefore ask the noble Lord the Minister for Science—I am sorry, but the issue is somewhat technical—how he intends to calculate the risk for the next generation posed by the low probability but high consequence threat of 1999 AN 10 and other potentially hazardous asteroids which have a non-zero impact probability?
Furthermore, is the noble Lord the Minister for Science aware that only 10 per cent of near earth objects which could be classified as hazardous have been identified so far?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am aware of the situation and all that information on asteroid 1999 AN 10. It was discovered in January. The estimated probability is one in 500,000 of colliding with the earth during its 2044 encounter. It is therefore extremely remote. It is important that this information is transmitted regularly and we hope that in due course the spaceguard website will convey the information to the public.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if such a centre is to be established in the United Kingdom the obvious place is Armagh observatory in Northern Ireland where they have the experience, have undertaken a great deal of research and where work can be carried out most effectively?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, one of the key issues in this regard is that any programme of detection or deflection should be on an international basis. In view of the fact that we would not be able to tell where such things were going to land until the last moment, it would be absurd if each country were to

131
have its own detection and deflection programme. Therefore, it is important that we have an international effort. The ESA is working on an international effort. When it has been produced we will examine what contribution we can make and the Armagh observatory will be an obvious candidate to play a part in that.
Lord Winston: My Lords, in addition to consulting other agencies, has the Minister considered consulting the right reverend Prelates?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that prayer would certainly be a key part of any strategy.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the asteroid has already landed and is called William Hague?
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, am I right in believing in the odds quoted by the Minister are twice as good as the odds of winning the lottery? Does not that give him cause for concern?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the odds are extremely remote and are comparable to winning the National Lottery. That means we should have one instance about every 100,000 years.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, how does the Minister propose to deflect these objects?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the main consideration in deflection, if it ever gets to that point, is that the longer time one has between the time one observes the object and the time of impact the easier it is to deflect it because one can deal with less force. A number of proposals have been made ranging from impact on the asteroid, to nuclear weapons, to detonation on the surface of the asteroid. Clearly, in most cases, if we observe it early enough it would be possible to think of a strategy to deal with it.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the fact that the name of spaceguard and the concept of it was devised many years ago by the eminent science fiction writer, Arthur C. Clarke, now Sir Arthur Clarke, who is a British subject and has his own telescope? Does that not furnish a very strong reason why we should have our own national agency, no doubt working with the international agencies, in order to draw on the great experience and imagination of that great writer?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I must disagree. There are more important considerations as to whether we have our own agency. The first question is whether work should be done by any of the current bodies rather than invoking new agencies.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister has been subjected to the giggle-factor, which is a problem involved with this subject. Does he agree on the general principle that if nations are prepared to pay
132
to preserve their civilised past for the current generation, they should be equally prepared to pay for the preservation of a civilised future for the next generation? Would not a first step in this direction be to subscribe to a national spaceguard centre as part of a European contribution to a global spaceguard programme which could benefit the future of all mankind?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I would not wish to imply in any way that this is a trivial issue. It is a serious issue because mainly, while the chances of impact are extremely small, the impact of any object more than a kilometre in length could be considerable. Therefore, we propose to work through ESA. Of all subjects which come before this House, this is one in respect of which an international effort is the key. We shall play our part in that rather than acting independently.

Kosovo: Return of Refugees
2.57 p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What preparations are being made for creating conditions in Kosovo which will encourage refugees to return there once a settlement of the dispute with Yugoslavia has been achieved.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the refugees are keen to return to Kosovo as soon as their security is guaranteed. As the international security presence is established in Kosovo and as Federal Republic of Yugoslavia security forces withdraw, so we, in close collaboration with the military and UN, can begin the considerable task of providing the displaced persons and refugees with humanitarian support and assistance to rebuild their homes and essential infrastructure. The Department for International Development is currently establishing a field office in Pristina in order to better assist with this task.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that statement. However, perhaps I may express my disappointment that this Question is not being answered by her noble friend Lady Symons who I informed yesterday that my Question would be a political one and not an aid question. I want to refer to a matter which I believe is relevant to the question of the enthusiasm or lack of enthusiasm of the refugees to return to Kosovo; that is, the risk of continuing friction or disagreement between NATO and the Russians which could certainly discourage refugees returning.
Given the helpful role of Russia in securing the cease-fire and the known willingness of Russia to provide troops, is it not surprising that no role was provided for Russian troops in the military agreement? I am not justifying Russian action in relation to Pristina airport but it is important to understand why they may have taken this action.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Blaker: My Lords, with silence, I shall come to my Question. President Yeltsin referred to the

133
connection between that action and what he calls Russia being sidelined in the peace process. I raise this matter because I believe it is important. Is it not of great importance that we should continue to have good relations between Russia and NATO both in the context of Kosovo and the wider context?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I may assure the noble Lord that when I stand at the Dispatch Box I am answering on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. There has been no noticeable lack of enthusiasm with respect to refugees wanting to return to Kosovo. In fact, one of our concerns has been that refugees may want to return too quickly, before the international security force has had an opportunity to ensure security in Kosovo.
With regard to the specific point concerning Russia, my noble friend Lady Symons addressed this point yesterday in response to a question from the noble Lord. It might be helpful if I repeat some of what she said. We welcome a Russian contribution to KFOR. We are aware that a small number of Russian troops are already in Kosovo. There is a clear understanding that there will be no further movement of Russian troops into Kosovo without prior agreement in NATO. Of course, we want to continue to have good relations with the Russian Government, not only on this issue but on other issues also.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the Question and ask my noble friend about the refugees that are held in the United Kingdom. Can she tell us about the conditions under which they are being held and their view about their aspirations to return to Kosovo?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, our aim has always been to ensure that it is safe for refugees before we propose their return to Kosovo from the UK. There are just under 3,500 refugees in the UK who have come in since the end of April. They are located in a number of refugee centres across the country. I should like to pay tribute to the work of local authorities and the voluntary sector, as well as the work of the Refugee Council which has been instrumental in ensuring a warm welcome for them. Our initial contact with the refugees indicated that the majority would like to return as soon as possible. We shall be in regular communication with them to ensure that that happens.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the enormous cost of repairing the damage done in Kosovo should be apportioned between those who took part in the campaign? What steps are being taken to see that the benefit of the work that results from those payments will be felt, as far as possible, in Kosovo and not distributed among other countries?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, noble Lords may be aware that we announced an additional £50 million yesterday for the Kosovo effort. We are working with our international partners and the international financial institutes to ensure that we look not just at the immediate rehabilitation effort but also the long-term
134
reconstruction of the entire region. It is far too early to say how much that will cost. However, I am sure that question will be raised in this House on several more occasions.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one aspect of infrastructure that must be addressed with great urgency is the devastated state of the education system? Is the Minister aware that since the crisis began a couple of years ago, a thousand dons from Pristina University and tens of thousands of teachers, all of Albanian ethnic origin, have been dismissed? Must not, therefore, staffing and equipping the education system be very, very high in our priorities for re-establishing life in Kosovo?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that education is one of our key priority areas. We have been working to ensure that even in the refugee camps the children have access to education. I am sure that when a civilian administration is established in Kosovo, education will be one of the key priority areas.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord 'Whiny will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on London Underground.

House of Lords Bill
3.6 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
PURPOSE OF ACT
(" . The purpose of this Act is to create a more legitimate and more democratic House of Lords which will increase the independence of Parliament and enhance its ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the executive to account.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in order to draw the attention of noble and noble and learned Lords on the Government Bench opposite to the irresistibility of Amendment No. 1, I should like to remind noble and noble and learned Lords of some of the statements they have made about its component parts.
The first is a statement made by the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister about democracy. He said:
"Surely the democratic monstrosity is not the House of Commons deciding that one variant of the PR system is the best but the Conservative Party using its permanent in-built majority of Conservative hereditary Peers, elected by no one and accountable to no one, to overturn the democratic majority in the House. That is how the vast majority of people will see it".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/98; col. 935.]
Then, in the Labour Party's election manifesto we find on page 33 the statement:
"This will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative".
Still on the word "democratic" in the amendment, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to two statements made by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. On 14th October, 1998, at col. 922, the noble Baroness said:
"Legislating to stop hereditary Peers being Members of Parliament removes a profoundly undemocratic element".
She went on to say at col. 923:
"I should emphasise that the removal of the hereditaries will, at the most recent count, still leave a Conservative majority over Labour of 22. Nonetheless, any change which produces a fairer balance—as our proposals will—must make this House more democratic".
I hope noble Lords on the Government Benches will agree with me that, on the basis of those statements, the Bill before your Lordships' House, in the Government's view, will produce a more democratic legislative Chamber.
I address now the second component of my amendment which concerns legitimacy and turn my attention to the Government's White Paper entitled Reforming the House of Lords, where we find on page three:
"The present House of Lords suffers from a lack of legitimacy because of its anachronistic and unrepresentative composition".
Then on page 6 we find:
"But the House of Lords and the work it carries out suffer from its lack of legitimacy, because the presence of a hereditary peers creates a permanent, inbuilt majority for a single party. For its functions to be properly performed, the House of Lords needs a degree of legitimacy which it does not now enjoy".
Finally, on page 7 of the White Paper we find a reference to:
"the fundamental problems of the House—the deficiencies in its legitimacy arising from its method of selection".
I hope noble Lords on the Government Benches will again agree with me that, by their own definition, the changes proposed in the Bill will make your Lordships' House more legitimate. Then I turn to the other part of the amendment which will,
"increase the independence of Parliament and enhance its ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the executive to account".
On 22nd February 1999 at col. 847 of the Motion to take note in the debate on the House of Lords reform, we find the noble Baroness the Leader of the House saying:
"I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that, overall, the Government accept the broad sentiments of his amendment"—
the amendment tabled by the Opposition and not voted against by the Government—
"Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, pointed out. the first page of the White Paper emphasises that Parliament is the central element of Britain's democracy, and that for Parliament to carry out its purpose it must act with authority and integrity. That principle is the basis for our proposals for reform of this Chamber; to improve the effectiveness and balance of the House so that it can play a full and proper role in Parliament, a role which necessarily includes a significant scrutiny of legislation and of the executive".
I finally turn—your Lordships will be relieved to hear—to the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made the following day on 23rd February 1999 at col. 1086, where he said,
"The Government entirely share the view that it is essential that Parliament should be properly equipped to scrutinise legislation and to hold the executive to account. That is precisely why we wish to reform the composition of this House. In our view its present composition means that it lacks the legitimacy to do [that job] properly".
In the same speech, in col. 1087, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, continues,
"My noble friend the Leader of the House has made clear that the Government agree with the first part of it"—
that is, of the Opposition's amendment which concerned itself with scrutiny and control of the executive. He went on:
"Who can be against an increase in the independence of Parliament and an enhancement of its ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the executive to account".
There we have it. If your Lordships read Amendment No. 1 again, and the words, a "more democratic House of Lords"; "a more legitimate" House of Lords; and a,
"House of Lords which will increase the independence of Parliament and enhance its ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the executive to account",
your Lordships will see that on the Government's own terms, in the Government's own words, every ingredient of that amendment is accepted by them. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, we debated a virtually identical proposition from the official Opposition in Committee and we seem today to be quoting previous remarks. But I hope your Lordships will agree that those previous remarks on an amendment almost precisely the same as the one tabled today may be of greater relevance to the decisions as to whether or not to accept this amendment than the more broad discussion points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
When we debated the almost identical proposition to this one, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, described the amendments as probing amendments designed to give the Government an opportunity to explain where they stood on the issues raised by the amendments. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn explained the answer to that in some detail. Those amendments, which were debated at Committee stage, served the purpose of airing the subjects for debate. I am therefore somewhat surprised to see them reappear, especially as they are virtually identical, despite the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that if the Opposition returned to these questions at all, they would be seeking a different form of words which answered some of the criticisms made in the debate. As I understood it—I re-read the Committee stage proceedings on this matter this morning—it was not their view that they wished to reopen, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has just done, a very general debate on some of the subjects which, as he has rightly drawn out, we debated over a

137
long period on the long-term reform of this House and the impact that that might have both politically and legally.
The noble Lord drew on evidence given to the Royal Commission in developing his own theme. I say again—your Lordships must tire of hearing this—that that evidence was the Labour Party's evidence and not the Government's evidence. It sets out the principles the party believes the Royal Commission should address.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. In fact, I did not quote from that evidence. I quoted from the White Paper, not from the evidence to the Royal Commission itself.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I apologise. I misunderstood the noble Lord. I thought he mentioned the evidence to the Royal Commission. However, he was reopening some of the general points about the longer-term issues that we have discussed at length. As he rightly says, we accept the broad principles, but do not feel that they are immediately relevant to the proceedings on this Bill.
In our previous debates on the subject of a purpose clause—the point behind these amendments—we had the authoritative view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale (I am glad to see him in his place) who explained why purpose clauses should not be entertained in respect of Bills of the simplicity and clarity of the one we are discussing today. As he quite rightly said, they are unnecessary. I could perhaps also draw on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is not in his place this afternoon, who chaired the previous committee on the preparation of legislation and recommended that purpose clauses should be used only when they are the most convenient method of clarifying the scope and effect of the legislation.
I suggest also that the present purpose clause is describing purposes to this Bill which are simply wrong. They may describe the political effect of the Bill, but they do not describe its purpose which is a much more narrowly defined issue. The purpose of the Bill, in law, is to remove the automatic right to be a Member of this House by virtue of a hereditary peerage. In this country it is not practice—I argue this point with some trepidation with the noble Lord—to add extraneous provisions to Bills just to make those types of political points. There is no ambiguity in this Bill that such a purpose clause might help the courts in interpreting. There is no external obligation to which it gives effect which it would be worth specifically linking to the Bill. I do have the courage to assert, as a non-lawyer, that otiose law is bad law in all instances.
That is why we continue to think that the Bill should not contain a purpose clause. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord who moved the amendment that it is emphatically not because we are embarrassed by any of the sentiments expressed in the amendment, or indeed embarrassed to have our general remarks recalled. We agree, of course, with those remarks and we agree with some of the sentiments which are expressed in the amendment. We are delighted that the Official Opposition are prepared to assert in amendments that
138
those are worthwhile aims. They are indeed. They will indeed be the political effect of the Bill but they are not its purpose.
I also remind your Lordships that simply to say something is the case does not make it so. We all have before us the example of the 1911 Act to make us understand that. I remind your Lordships that the preamble to the 1911 Act famously promised that it was the first step on the way to a more democratic popular Chamber. The fact that after 88 years nothing has been done about that until now indicates just how pointless that kind of declaratory purpose may be.
What I have said about Amendment No. 1 applies also to Amendment No. 3, which is labelled the "Purpose of Act (No. 2)", and that is also in the name of the Official Opposition. I concede that in that second version they have done rather more redrafting of the propositions than they did both in the first amendment and those that we debated at Committee stage. However, I must tell your Lordships that they have not made enough changes to overcome our conviction that putting such a clause in the Bill is unnecessary and undesirable. Again, I would say to them that this is not because we regard the aims of the amendments as being anything other than consistent with the long-term policy objectives that we have put on the record. I merely repeat that we are not embarrassed by either version. We stand by either version as a long-tern objective. But we feel that the amendment is inaccurate in not describing the limited purpose of this Bill and is superfluous in asserting its political effects.
The Government have the proper respect for the law and for the purpose of law. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. If he does not wish to do that, I would urge the House to reject it.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House says that this Bill does not, unlike the Parliament Act 1911, contain a preamble. That is perfectly true. But this Bill goes much further than the Parliament Act 1911. Therefore, in our judgment, for reasons even more powerful, it should have either a preamble or a purpose clause. But the noble Baroness will not accept that.
Unless the noble Baroness's reasons for introducing this Bill to your Lordships' House were wholly arbitrary, then the Bill must have a purpose. That purpose has been made very clear to your Lordships' House on several occasions during the many debates we have had on it; it is that the removal of hereditary Peers, in the Government's view, and the reduction in the Conservative majority, in the Government's view, will produce a more democratic and legitimate House.
I happen not to agree with that, because I do not understand the distinction between a nominated Peer and the son of a nominated Peer. It seems to me that they are both equally legitimate or equally illegitimate, both equally democratic or equally undemocratic. I do not see the distinction.
The Government's belief is that there is a distinction. The Government are clearly on record as saying that the reason for this Bill is that they want the House to be

139
more democratic and more legitimate. It must follow that, once this Bill is operational, the House will be more democratic and more legitimate. Why are they so frightened of saying that in the Bill if they have said that about the Bill in every single speech they have made?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I shall make only one point. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with the familiar repetition that this is the first stage of a process of reform. The purposes of this Bill are very clear, and are set out in Clause 1. I do not think there is any argument about that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, at the risk of interfering in an almost private exchange, perhaps I may—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it may be helpful to remind the House that we are at Report stage and that, on a government Bill, only the mover of an amendment should speak after the Minister.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, in those circumstances, and despite the Opposition's strong feelings about this point, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
REFERENDUM
(" .—(1) This Act shall not come into force until the people of the United Kingdom have approved its coming into force in a referendum.
(2) The question to be put on such referendum shall be—
"Do you wish to retain the House of Lords as constituted with the Hereditary Peerage until enactment of a Bill to establish a successor House [YES/NO].")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 63, which is consequential. These are not probing amendments to find out where the Government stand. I think we all know where the Government stand in the measure of their opposition to these amendments. These are Back-Bench, Cross-Bench amendments. They are not politically motivated. A free vote has been conceded on our Back Benches and I understand today that my own Front Bench will neither oppose nor support these amendments.
These amendments are concerned with the exercise of the powers of governance. As such, they enter inevitably the domain of party political contention. The question is, having regard to the apparent state of public opinion, whether, on these matters substantially affecting the constitution, there would be a deprivation of entitlement of the people if referenda were not to be held in the due exercise of the powers of governance. The questions arising on these amendments are not the same as those arising on the transitional House.
In deference to the decision of your Lordships' House on the transitional House amendment, it is not to be called in question. Your Lordships are nonetheless
140
invited to consider whether Clause 2 should not be qualified by these referendum amendments. The arguments in support of these amendments and the transitional House amendments are distinct, free-standing and not mutually inconsistent. Such is the authoritative advice.
The Government, in breach of their own manifesto commitment, by introducing their own wrecking amendment as Clause 2 have shot their own manifesto fox. Only the broadest assent of the people can now salvage this wreck of a Bill. Let it be said, to deflect the scatterchaff of misinformation and confusion, first, that these referendum amendments do not wreck the transitional House amendment but could afford legitimacy without appreciable delay if such is the wish of the people. Having supported the transitional House amendment, which was not amended in Committee and may not be amended thereafter, your Lordships may well now conclude that this Bill as amended is not acceptable to your Lordships unless it is also acceptable to the people. Your Lordships may well prefer that this situation should be resolved by the people at the behest of your Lordships' House and not by your Lordships' House as a self-interested party. Even noble Lords who are minded to reject the Bill on Third Reading—and I see some of them present in the Chamber—might, if I may respectfully suggest, prefer to allow the people to decide whether or not this legislation should come into force. For are we not all but the servants of the people?
A "yes" vote on the question to be put would inhibit the Act from coming into force. No doubt that is why it is opposed by the Government. A "no" vote would enable the Act to come into force at once under Amendment No. 63, with the broad assent of the people. The dust-ridden area of the Amendment No. 31, upon which 230 noble Lords—that is, over one third of those attending—abstained, including the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, needs not to be revisited in this debate, and thank heavens for that!
However, the people should know that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and many other noble Lords have recognised that no firm assurance can be given as to whether, when and in what form a successor Chamber may be established. As yet, the people are aware—they have not been consulted on it—of the setting up of a transitional House with 92 hereditary Peers to sit for life, until an Act of Parliament provides to the contrary, as a process of self-selection on a provisional 13th draft of standing orders not yet approved by the House.
What is the current apparent state of public opinion? To begin with, two-thirds favour retention of your Lordships' House as constituted, with the hereditary Peers, until full details of reform are known. Over half—that is, 58 per cent—reject retention of the hereditary entitlement in any successor Chamber. On the assumption that a transitional House were to be set up, two-thirds considered that it was about right, not too many and not too few, in answer to questions put. But no question was put as to whether a transitional House should be set up nor any question such as is proposed in the amendment; and no such question has been put since the two-thirds favoured retention of your

141
Lordships' House as constituted, until the details of reform were known. Therefore, it is idle to suggest, as has been suggested, that there is some general public support for keeping hereditary Peers in a transitional House until reform has been fully worked out. Such is not the case.
Having regard to that state of public opinion, is it acceptable to your Lordships that this Bill, as amended, should be imposed without regard to the wishes of the people? At least those who wrote to me since the Committee stage, some of whom voted Labour, should know that their representations for a referendum have been brought to your Lordships' attention and that the Government, according to their stated intention, are not minded to accept their representations on this amendment or, indeed, any other amendment.
Although on the referendum debate on 12th May it was accepted that referendums have now become part of our political process, the view of many noble Lords, which I share, is that, in general, referendums are not to be favoured. But where provisions substantially affecting the constitution on which the people are divided against the Government are concerned, where a simple, readily intelligible question can be put, such as was not the case on Maastricht, where the referendum is conducted under fair and proper ground rules, which will soon become generic, and where a threshold—a fence—to he jumped has been erected, then, as in this case, your Lordships may think that a referendum is not only right, proper and reasonable but part of the political process within the power of governance.
As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said in Committee, why are the Government in such a flap unless they are nervous about the proposition? It cannot be beyond the wit of government or Parliament to pass a short referendum Bill, or to attach such a measure to this Bill. Almost exactly two years ago we passed a referendum Bill in less than two months. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Cranborne said that if this amendment were to be accepted on the first day of Committee, it would make it more difficult to amend the Bill in other ways and that, after the Committee stage, this "admirable proposal", as he then called it, would be set in context.
The rectitude of such advice and, indeed, the advice given by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that I should take a rain check and return, was much appreciated and is acknowledged with gratitude. Taking account of the constructive criticism, these amendments have been redrafted to strip them down to matters of essential principle. First, the referendum will not be delayed until after the report of the Royal Commission. Secondly, provisions as to the conduct of the referendum have been omitted; and, thirdly, a simple question, all but incapable of misunderstanding, to be put on the referendum is proposed.
We are told by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who I no longer see in his place—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: In any event, I had better say what I was going to say. We are told by the
142
noble and learned Lord that we, the life Peers, represent the country. Well, such is the very purpose of this amendment. It is not readily understood why in your Lordships' House, as constituted, the hereditary Peers do not also represent the country. The rectitude of the principle asserted by these amendments was acknowledged by the Government in the White Paper to which reference was made at Committee stage, and to which no doubt other noble Lords may wish to refer in this debate.
If this admirable proposal for a referendum were now to commend itself to your Lordships in principle—and that is how it is put before your Lordships—in context with the Bill as now amended, it would avoid pre-empting the Royal Commission's process of public consultation which your Lordships all know about. It would qualify the Bill as amended in breach of the manifesto to enable legitimacy to be conferred upon it and it would afford a requisite measure of protection, of safeguards removed by this Bill on which the people rely, as was put so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who I see is in his place.
As the nation would appear to be substantially divided against the Government, your Lordships may well conclude that verification of the wishes of the people on this matter of constitutional importance in the due exercise of the powers of governance is not only appropriate but wholly requisite. Was it of the essence of the deal that the guardianship function of your Lordships' House should he overridden? Who can tell? Who knows? I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I was too late to ask the simple question I intended to ask of the Government on the previous amendment because I had mistaken what proved to be the winding-up speech of the noble Baroness as a mere intervention to ask information from my noble friend on the Front Bench. I do not want to be caught in that way again. Therefore I now ask a question relating to this amendment which is concerned with the state of public opinion. I hope that whoever delivers the reply on behalf of the Government will be able to tell us what is being done to draw the attention of the public to the public hearings of the Royal Commission on the future of this House which, as I understand it, have been conducted in something approaching privacy in some of our provincial capitals.
The other point I want to address to my noble friend is the following. While I follow his argument I am concerned again by his drafting because the question he asks is:
"Do you wish to retain the House of Lords as constituted until enactment of a Bill to establish a successor House?"
As I understand it, this is a Bill to enact a successor House. I cannot see how you can describe it otherwise. It is not the last Bill or the last successor House, bur it is a successor House. It seems therefore that the referendum—if it is conducted in the terms here drafted—would not succeed in elucidating anything. However, I await with great interest the reply to my question about the Royal Commission.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is with great diffidence that I find myself in disagreement with the noble Lords whose names are to this amendment. Obviously there is much to be said on the place of a referendum within a democratic society. That was why in the previous Parliament the government of the time were urged repeatedly to set up a Royal Commission which could consider a whole number of interrelated points which have now emerged without the benefit of that mature consideration; namely, referendum, second Chamber, method of voting and a whole number of others. That was not done.
If, as I believe, a society is democratic in so far as the mass of the people can influence the decisions which will affect themselves, in those circumstances it is obviously desirable that there are certain matters that should be directly addressed to the people at large. As I ventured to suggest on an earlier occasion, that is by no means the only method of democracy; nor is representative government. Probably the most effective is to vouchsafe to the individual who is affected by a decision the decision itself. That is why we now all embrace the market economy where every penny put down on a counter is a vote for one or other candidate for the favour of the customer. That not only means that he can choose what goods please him most, but by thereby doing he influences the whole shape and development of the economy. It was to the great credit of the Conservative governments who preceded the present one that they seized on that truth and vindicated it. I believe that it is now accepted almost universally in this country and indeed abroad.
But obviously there are certain questions that cannot be addressed to the individual himself. Someone else may be affected and that is the reason why we have a representative democracy, a parliamentary democracy. However, in the case of a referendum certain not only wide questions but also specific ones can be submitted. We have heard a great deal in the deliberations on this Bill about manifesto commitments which all too often slip into the old phrase of "manifesto mandate". Of course there is no such thing. It is quite unreal to pretend that voting for a party is a vote for everything in a manifesto. On the contrary my experience was—such as it was—that in general there was a vote against a party on very general grounds rather than a vote for a party, and particularly not a vote for the individual items in a manifesto.
However, it would be perfectly possible to put those questions. The state of California has referenda which go into such detail. Indeed, as your Lordships will remember from a debate in the previous Parliament, so does Switzerland. Therefore there is much to be said for a referendum although it still has to be decided whether it should be pre-legislative or post-legislative.
In my respectful submission, there are two overriding reasons why this amendment should not be accepted and I very much hope that the noble Lord will not press it to a Division. First, there is Clause 2, the Weatherill amendment, which was overwhelmingly approved by your Lordships. Although there has been perhaps a
144
moment of fractiousness about whether the Government would stand by their amendment—quite unreal fractiousness, in fact—the noble Baroness and my noble and learned friend are standing loyally by the agreement. I believe that in those circumstances their position must be sustained.
My noble friend Lord Marsh pointed out in an earlier debate the difficulties that might arise in the other place. It would be quite deplorable for us to do anything to increase those difficulties or to make the position of the noble Baroness and my noble and learned friend more difficult. That is the first reason.
The second reason is that the proposed question virtually invites a repetition of the highly undesirable contention before 1914 of "the Peers against the people". That is how it would be represented. However, we have got away from that by means of Clause 2 in which the Government have conceded—at any rate, in the interim—the value of a chosen section of your Lordships remaining Members of this House. I refer to the hereditary element. Although these words were not used then, perhaps I may describe those noble Lords as the crème de la crème. I would be very surprised if those 90 Members are not only considerably superior to anything that can be proffered through the life peerage system to top up the Government's numbers, but also considerably superior to any similar body in any legislative system in the world.
Moreover, as a result of the retention of that element, the Royal Commission will be enabled to see whether some element of the hereditary peerage should be carried forward into its recommendations with regard to the ultimate composition of your Lordships' House. It may well do so. If it does not, that will probably be because the Government have so categorically declined to consider any further hereditary element that the Royal Commission may consider—I hope not, but it may well do so—that it would be useless to recommend the continuance even of the crème de la crème of the hereditary element.
As we have now got away from "the Peers against the people" and as the Government have now conceded the value of the hereditary element, if only in the interim House—that point should not be dismissed—it seems foolish to invite a recrudescence of a campaign of "the Peers against the people".
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for introducing the amendment. I see no reason why reform of your Lordships' House, alone among the major constitutional changes introduced or proposed by the Government, should not be put to the people in a referendum, particularly as the Bill conflicts in two major respects with the commitment contained in the Labour Party's manifesto.
Those two respects are, first, that the Bill does not make your Lordships' House more democratic or more representative and, secondly, that the Bill as amended provides for the continued involvement in the affairs of your Lordships' House of 92 hereditary Peers.

145
The Bill fundamentally alters the composition of your Lordships' House and, in so doing, affects its ability to discharge its functions. Inevitably, the Bill alters the relationship of this House with another place. Therefore, it is a measure the effect of which is comparable in importance with the measures under which the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Greater London Authority were established. Therefore, I believe that that also should be submitted to the people for their approval.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, whom I do not see in his place, pointed out in Committee on 18th May:
"The Government also think that the composition of this Chamber is not just a matter for this House. There are wider considerations beyond the wishes of this House, in particular the wishes of another place and of the people".—[Official Report, 18/5/99; col. 223.]
We know how the Government intend to ascertain the wishes of another place, but how will they discover the wishes of the people? I should like to ask the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government still hold the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, because, if they do, I should like to know how they intend to discover the wishes of the people other than by means of a referendum. It is clear that the people have had no opportunity to express their views on the Bill as it currently stands. I think that it is absolutely right that they should be given such an opportunity.
With respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I do not think that this is a case of "the Peers against the people" but rather that the Peers would like the people's opinion on whether the people—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstood me. It would be represented as "the Peers against the people".
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am sure that certain elements would attempt to represent it as "the Peers against the people" but it would not be that as, I think, the people would recognise. They would recognise that the Peers were seeking the people's opinion on whether they wished the Peers to continue to act as a constraint on the power of the executive until such time as a successor House, stage two, is agreed.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the amendment calls for a referendum on this Bill. It is technically a somewhat odd amendment. I wonder how an Act of Parliament can authorise a referendum and specify questions to be asked in that referendum when no part of that Act is in force. However, that is a lawyer's quibble and could no doubt be cured by redrafting.
What cannot be cured by redrafting is the substance of the amendment. The referendum would not be about the permanent retention of the hereditary membership of your Lordships' House. That question was decided in 1910 when the Liberals and their allies won two successive general elections on the platform of "the Peers against the people". Permanent retention of the hereditary membership is not now supported by any political party in this country. Indeed, it is supported by
146
only a few Members of your Lordships' House. Frankly, it has no support among the public. Therefore, the permanent retention of the hereditary element is not a live question.
The referendum would relate only to the transitional stage. When a similar amendment was debated in Committee, the Weatherill amendment had not been passed. In effect, the question then proposed for such a referendum was: should all hereditary Peers be removed from the House of Lords before stage two, or none of them? I said then that even at that stage we did not think that such a question was appropriate for a referendum. Although it was an important issue, we did not think that it was so fundamental as to require a referendum of the entire electorate. I do not want to re-argue that question now because the situation has changed. Indeed, it has changed so as to make the case for having a referendum, such as it was, very much weaker than at that time.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out, the Weatherill amendment has since been passed and accepted by the Government. That changes the situation entirely. The question that would now have to be asked in a referendum is: do you want all hereditary Peers to remain in the House of Lords until stage two, or simply 92 of them?
That seems to be a wholly unsuitable question for a referendum. It is a far less important question than when the Bill did not contain the Weatherill amendment. For better or worse, your Lordships' House will continue to contain a substantial hereditary element during the transitional stage. The question of whether that element should be all 750 or only 92 is of great importance to the individuals affected by it, but it is not an issue of great public importance. It is certainly not an issue that is being discussed in the pubs and clubs—with the possible exception of White's. Referendums should be kept for issues of national significance and should not be devalued by being used too often. If we hold the referendum that this amendment asks for, the turnout for it will make last Thursday's turnout for the European elections look like mass hysteria.
The Government rely on their manifesto; it is not our manifesto. If we thought it right to support a referendum, we would do so. But without regard to the manifesto, we do not support the call for a referendum on its own merits. As it is, we are unhappy with the Weatherill amendment. To add a requirement for a referendum to the Weatherill amendment would, in our view, effectively constitute a wrecking of the Bill. We are therefore wholly unable to support this amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly explain to your Lordships' House why I support the amendment and have put my name to it.
We have heard again talk about the manifesto. That argument has been exhausted and I do not propose to enter further into it. We are all agreed that the Government are perfectly entitled to enact legislation which is referred to in their manifesto. The only point I would make—it has already been made more than

147
once during the passage of the Bill—is that we are all agreed, on both sides of the House, that the Government did not obtain its massive majority on the issue of the hereditary peerage. There were other matters upon which the electorate voted. That is the only point left to make about the manifesto.
However, on the question of this constitutional change, we have been already advised to look at the record so far. In matters of constitutional change there have been appeals for a referendum on the Assembly in Wales, the Parliament in Scotland, on Northern Ireland, the assembly in London and we understand there is to be a referendum on the question of the common currency in Europe. The question then arises: whether the change now proposed in the Bill is a constitutional change of lesser importance than any of those. In my view it is not. It is a constitutional change of profound importance which is designed to lead—and will lead—to constitutional changes of even deeper significance. Therefore, if it is right to ask the people by referendum about the other constitutional changes, it is certainly right, proper and desirable to ask their views about this one.
Comments have been made that the people are ignorant of the issues; that the turnout for such a referendum would be low. If there is ignorance of the issue in the country, the answer is to remove it. In order to remove that ignorance of the issues from the public mind, we should have a referendum, have it debated and have the issues on both sides fully explained to the people. There is a need for a much wider debate. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that the matter is not much discussed in the pubs and clubs. It is not; but it should be. We are the people who can make it so. Outside of Parliament, I have found very little knowledge in the country of not only the Bill but the functions of the House of Lords; what it does, when it does it; what it is designed to do and how well it does it. These matters are not known to people generally outside Parliament—except of course for London taxi drivers who, as usual, know more about them than any of us. Leaving taxi drivers aside, there is room for a wide and wide-ranging public debate on the matter.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said that it would be represented once again as the old issue of the Peers against the people. If it is represented as such a matter by those who are against the referendum, then those of us who are in favour of a referendum should explain that it is not so. If we cannot win the argument then we do not deserve to win the referendum. But we must have argument and debate.
It is often quite rightly said that there is a difficulty about framing a question for a referendum; usually there is. I do not think that argument holds in this case. The question set out in Amendment No. 2 is a very simple one. It has been suggested by other noble Lords that it might be misunderstood. I do not believe that there is a very great danger of that. It is very clear that what the amendment means by a "successor House" is a House which follows the interim House. That is perfectly clear in this draft amendment.
148
It has been said—not today but at other times during the debate on the Bill—that there are those who are minded to reject the Bill at Third Reading. That would be indeed a drastic step to take; it has all kinds of implications. I would regard that as becoming unnecessary—or, at least, less desirable—if the amendment were passed. It would mean that on a constitutional change, which is, in my view, of the profoundest importance to every person in this country, every person in this country would have the right and the opportunity to say whether he or she wanted it or not.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly intervene. I accept the commitment given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on the previous occasion when we discussed this matter, that this was not an attempt to delay. But, whatever way one looks at it, that will be the consequence. I accept that a referendum does not have to wait for the Royal Commission but, nevertheless, there will be delays. A referendum Bill will need to be established and we will have to go through the procedures. That will take time and delay will still be a consequence of accepting the amendment.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. When we arrive at the successor House, does he then propose that there should be a second post-legislative referendum in order that the public can say whether they agree with what will be a further constitutional change?
May I make one point on the matter of constitutional change and holding a referendum. There would be more validity in the argument if there had been a demand for a referendum on the Human Rights Bill. I do not recall anyone on the other side of the House requesting one.
My final point relates to the question on the referendum. I find great difficulty with it. Recently in your Lordships' House we had a debate on referendums. It was generally agreed across the House that one of the most important matters was that the question should be simple; that it should be able to clearly have a "yes" or "no" answer; and that it would be understood absolutely. I have had three different interpretations given to me of what the question says. Therefore, I do not think that it is simple. It is not the type of wording for a referendum question. It has too much legalese in its approach, which will cause problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said that he wanted the amendment accepted in principle. That is fine, but when one has something as rigid as the question written into the amendment, then that becomes the fact and the principle ceases to be. One then has the wording on the face of the Bill as the wording which will go into the referendum, without any consultation or discussion about what might be in a referendum Bill, who should consider the question and who should consider the details of holding a referendum. As with the previous amendment, I have great technical problems with this one.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, one should try to greet the noble Baroness who has just sat down with the congratulations and thanks that are usually tendered to

149
a maiden speaker. It is not often that we have the privilege of hearing a contribution from a noble Lord or noble Baroness from the Government Back Benches. So we cordially welcome her and hope that we shall hear from her often.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but I do not know how many times I and my colleagues have spoken in the Committee stage debates in this Chamber.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am sorry if I happened to be absent on some of those occasions. However, I do hope that the noble Baroness will not lose the habit of speaking.
I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I will not go into the issue at length for the reasons given with great eloquence by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. First, I believe that if we were to have a referendum, we would be moving backwards to a stage which we passed long ago with the Weatherill amendment. Secondly, I believe it to be almost inevitable that if we had a referendum on this subject, it would be represented as one more round in the battle which finished long ago; that of the Peers against the people. So I hope with some confidence that when the noble Baroness the Leader of the House comes to reply, she will reject the amendment.
We should also bear in mind that referendums asking the public to express their opinion are not all that popular. Only last week, we emerged from a process which I would not like to describe in detail. I refer to that awful document which most of us met for the first time in a polling station. It was a revolting way of taking an opinion on the subject. If it is ever tried again, I believe that the disappointment recently experienced by the public will lead to an even lower poll than we had on this occasion. Those who advocate referendums should bear in mind that the public do not find us all that interesting. They do not wish to hear from us every day of the week.
There are in your Lordships' House many more modest people than there are in the House of Commons. We should perhaps use our influence on them to avoid referendums, and not encourage the use of this rather superficial and unpleasant device.
I wish to make only one more point before I sit down. I wish to express very quietly my sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Elton said very courteously just now. He said that when the first amendment appeared there occurred what I took to be—I may be wrong—a preliminary private chat between the two Front Benches, with eventually someone on the Back Benches perhaps having a chance to speak. It was silly of me to have had that view, but nevertheless I missed my opportunity to express an opinion. I will not go into what my opinion was now, but I hope that in future we will not be the victims of the Whips on the Government Front Bench and be caught out without having had an opportunity to say something.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I must gently intervene to say that I rose to reply to the noble
150
Lord, Lord Kingsland, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench only after what I considered to be a fairly significant pause in the proceedings. I was following the procedures on Report, as was my noble friend the Whip on duty. We certainly left every opportunity for other noble Lords to rise. There seemed to be a significant silence at that time.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness for her explanation. If she will do me the courtesy of reading what I said, she will find that I made it perfectly clear that it was myself, and not her, who was the problem, and that I had made the mistake. That little private chat was entirely misread by myself, and for that I apologise.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the fact that I was under the same misapprehension perhaps throws a little light on the situation.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Goodhart has clearly and ably set out the position of these Benches. I largely concur with what he said. However, I should like to refer to one matter on which he touched and which has been referred to by other noble Lords who have spoken. I refer to the lessons to be drawn from the democratic catastrophe, as I think one could call it, of the recent European elections. I am not at all sure that I go along with the view that, because the result was such an appalling reflection of the democratic vitality of the British electorate, one should have less reference to the electorate and should engage in less dialogue with them. I think the reverse is true.
When the Leader of the House comes to reply to the amendment, I should like her to comment on the way in which the consultation exercise, if one can call it that, is going vis-à-vis the proposed second stage of reform of this House.
Before Christmas I asked whether there would be what I called in my Question a widespread information and consultation campaign with the public at large. The answer that I was unequivocally given was, yes. If one reads the White Paper setting up the Royal Commission, one will find there, too, an unequivocal and enthusiastic endorsement of the notion that we should be engaging the great British public as much as possible in a dialogue in which, first, they will be enabled to understand the main sinews and lines of reform proposed and, secondly, to give their response to those proposals in order that the Royal Commission may have fed into it a wider tributary of responses than those of the usual "chattering classes". I have to say that so far the signs are extremely disappointing.
The Royal Commission has set in train a series of a dozen or so public meetings. It is to be commended on that, but what is not to be commended is that there is little or nothing by way of public information, let alone consultation, around those public meetings. I believe

151
that two of them have already been cancelled because of a failure even to inform the public adequately that they were being conducted.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, as a matter of interest, can the noble Lord give some indication of what, where and how this relates to the Bill?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, it relates to the Bill in terms of the argument expressed by a number of noble Lords that the need for a referendum is to make up for the failure to inform and consult the public. I was seeking to engage the Government in responding to that general line of argument. While I am not persuaded that we should accept this amendment, I am entirely in sympathy with those noble Lords who feel that without it there will be no public information and consultation. That is the drift of my argument. I leave it at that, but I urge the Government, if it is not too late, to put some muscle behind this public information and consultation campaign and perhaps take a leaf out of the book of the Local Government Commission, which for the first and only time did effectively engage public opinion and received a huge response. I am disinclined to support the amendment, but I am extremely sympathetic to those who have spoken in terms of the failure to inform and consult the public.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, whatever conclusions may be drawn from last week's election results, they demonstrate two things. There is no overwhelming, pulsating desire on the part of the British electorate to become more and more involved in the political decision-making process. Secondly, far from being a catastrophe, it is difficult to imagine a more comprehensive, deeply emotionally moving demonstration of the British public's opinion of some of the activities of the European Commission. That came over loud and clear.
Like the noble Baroness, I could well understand, although not agree with, a call for a referendum on the proposals for stage two. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, represents a significant body of opinion which has believed from the beginning that the details of stage two should have been available and negotiated before we took the decision on stage one. That view has been expressed—and expressed, and expressed. A refrain has begun to emerge.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, drew attention (he was wrong, as he said) to the attendance of some Members of this House. I have become increasingly bewildered by the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber—I must say that I have not given the noble Lord notice of this comment—because this is reaching a stage where it could be set to music. It could be developed at some length.
The problem for all oppositions is that strongly held, perfectly legitimate views are not accepted by the government of the day and it is difficult to come to terms with that. There comes a time when a government has to take a decision. This Government, whether right or wrong, have made it clearly, as they are entitled to
152
do, and they want to do it this way. The amendment would mean going to the electorate with a referendum, which would take several months to set up, and effectively asking people to take part in the kind of negotiations which usually take place between the usual channels. The last thing the general public want is to get mixed up with the usual channels.
This is a serious point. We cannot get away from the recognition that there comes a stage in the passage of a Bill as controversial as this, and on which there are such deeply held emotions, when, with a government majority, it has to progress. Whatever the virtues of referendums—and I have grave doubts about them—to expect the public to take a decision on how we should manage the progress of a Bill through the Houses of Parliament would make us look ridiculous. That is not a criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. His is a serious and strongly held view. But we have now debated it many times. We cannot at this stage simply pass the matter on to the public by means of a referendum.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, always makes an entertaining speech, and he is usually right. But with the greatest respect, this time he is wrong. My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, who also makes entertaining speeches, is also wrong. I happen to believe that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is right.
I do not like referenda, for all the obvious reasons that have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. People have said to me that we elect people to the House of Commons in order to take decisions, and the first thing that they do is to turn round and ask the electorate what they ought to do about a particular matter. As one person who made that comment said, what on earth do we pay those people for other than to take decisions?
We have become hooked into these wretched referenda. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred to a number of different referenda—on Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and possibly the euro. Presumably the total alteration of one of the Chambers of Parliament is at least as important a subject for a referendum as the others.
I hesitate to disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, but to say that the Government have displayed such huge loyalty over the Weatherill amendment that, therefore, there should not be a referendum is not a matter of any moment. Of course the Government have shown loyalty over the Weatherill amendment. They instigated the arrangements that brought that about.
We have been told all along that this was in the manifesto. But what is being done now was not in the manifesto. The manifesto referred to the abolition of all hereditary Peers. There is now to be retention of 92 or 100 hereditary Peers. That is a very different matter. Much as I hate wretched referenda, as do many others, this question ought to be put to the people of this country. They should be asked: "Do you want one of the Chambers of Parliament altered like this, as a temporary measure?".

153
I always long to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I almost always disagree with what he says, and never more so than today. He says that no political party wants hereditary Peers; no one believes that hereditary Peers have any part to play in the political life of this country at all and that is out. He is plainly wrong. There is a just a hint of what outside this Chamber would be termed arrogance. It is the flavour that one would normally attribute to the noble Lord. The inference is that life Peers are tremendous and everyone wants them and does not want hereditary Peers. That is not my experience at all. Many people have said, "For goodness' sake why are the Government messing up the House of Lords? We want it kept as it is because we approve of the balance of hereditary and life Peers". The great idea that no one wants hereditary Peers, all they want is life Peers, is frankly a lot of nonsense.
I agree with the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that this is a constitutional change of profound proportions. So it is. Let no one think that it is anything else. It is not merely a minor twist or change. It is a total alteration. I do not believe that that is right. There is a good argument for saying: let the people of the country say whether they want it, yes or no. I hope that the House will accept the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps he will help me to understand his argument. I understood him to say that, without the additional twist of bringing in hereditaries, he would have had no objection to the will of the people as expressed at the general election. The problem as he sees it is that now the mandate which was sought and given is being varied, that variation entitles him to argue that it alone should be the subject of a referendum.
Surely the noble Earl was present in this Chamber when, months ago, arguments were put that some mechanism was needed to ensure that the Government's intention to have two stages had to be locked in by making the changes that were made. Surely the noble Earl has heard his former Leader, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and others putting the argument that was generally well received by his own side, that they have achieved an additional opportunity for a section of the House, a number of hereditaries, to remain until the second stage is achieved. So will the noble Earl help me by explaining his argument that a referendum is necessary because of the additional change, but was not necessary when the mandate was sought and received?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply. The noble Lord gets the whole matter completely wrong. He refers to the will of the people. It is not the will of the people to alter this House of Parliament. It is the result of a few lines in a manifesto. It is the will of the Labour Party. In a major situation such as this, whether with or without the addition of the Weatherill amendment, that change is of such profound importance that the view of the electorate should be sought.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, first "democratic catastrophe" is a novel description of a situation in which one's own vote is halved. Secondly, my noble friend Lord Ferrers was very keen that none of us who wanted a referendum on Maastricht should have our way. Thirdly, I must congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for wearing a spiffing blue—obviously to celebrate Thursday's election results. Up until now we have managed to pass constitutional Bills by the use of Parliament. I pressed for a referendum on Maastricht because I thought that it would go the way that I wanted. There is always a tendency to favour a referendum because one believes that one can get one's own way behind the back of Parliament. I believe that to be a bad idea. It seemed to me to be totally unnecessary to have a referendum on Scots or Welsh devolution. That was part of the Labour Party's manifesto, and it should have stuck to its guns and done it through Parliament and not by referendums.
I believe that it was the Duc de Lévis who said, "Gouverner, c'est choisir"—to govern is to choose. That is what governments are there for. The Government have made a choice in this Bill. They proposed one set of propositions and under considerable pressure, and, I suggest, with great grace, changed their mind and offered a major concession to those of us who thought that the first stage was not a dog's breakfast but a dog's indigestion or hangover in the middle of night—which it was. The Government have given a great deal and there is now only one point of real disagreement: namely, the issue of by-election, to which we shall come next Tuesday. We are being asked to insert into the Bill a provision for a referendum. Governments are there to govern, and if it comes to a Division I am afraid that I shall vote with the blue Lobby.
Lord Monson: My Lords, like the noble Lords, Lord Elton, Lord Goodhart and others, I have reservations about the wording of the proposed referendum. Like the noble Baroness on the Government Benches, J believe that such a question should be less legalistic and more user-friendly, but that is a detail that can easily be rectified at Third Reading. The important point is the principle. In addition to the reasons so well advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, there is another one touched on by my noble friend Lord Chalfont. The referendum campaign would provide a very necessary opportunity to correct widespread misapprehensions about this House. When a newspaper headline shrieks out "House of Lords spurns battered woman's plea"—referring to an appeal by a woman sentenced to life imprisonment for killing her violent and drunken husband—fully 50 per cent of the electorate, or perhaps more, imagine that 750 hard-hearted hereditary Peers have dismissed the woman's appeal, not a handful, of Law Lords sitting in their judicial capacity.
The confusion does not end there. Within the past few weeks highly educated and intelligent people like Dr Matt Ridley on the right of centre and a lady on the left of centre who holds a senior position in Charter 88 have written articles which indicate that they genuinely believe that at the moment there exists a hereditary' right

155
to rule, judge, order people about and single-handedly to make laws to change people's lives against their will. That is a total travesty of the truth. We have no such powers, thank God! The only power we have is a power of temporary delay which is rarely employed. Not a single Bill or amendment that emanates from your Lordships' House gets anywhere at all unless the elected Chamber gives it the green light, which is at it should be. We know this but most of the public do not. Once they know the truth, public support for the retention of your Lordships' House in broadly its present form for the time being is likely to be become even more widespread than it is now.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale was worried that the amendment might be construed as reopening the question of Peers versus the people. With all respect to him, it would have precisely the opposite effect. The short and medium-term future of this House would be entirely in the hands of the people as expressed by the referendum. What could be fairer than that?
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, reminds us, a number of entertaining speeches on this subject have been made. Like him, I want to be as clear where I stand as he is. I believe that he and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, are wrong and that the noble Lords, Lord Marsh and Lord Peyton, are right. To call for a referendum expresses two kinds of circumstances: at best it is some kind of strategic retreat; at worst it is further clutching at straws. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said that this saga could be put to music. It seems to me that if so it would become a classic Gilbert and Sullivan opera. If we put the constitutional position of the House of Lords in a referendum to the British people we would become an absolute laughing stock. The people are concerned about employment, health, education, the economy, keeping their families together and living in a society that is good for them. People are not concerned about the retention of hereditary Peers in the House of Lords.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I should like to make a short intervention, not so much on the ability of Parliament to deal with this Bill—I am sure that I shall be corrected, but Parliament is omnipotent and the sovereign, through Parliament, passes laws that affect the whole country—but the fact that power used without consideration can easily be abused and not respected. Power that is used prudently and considerately with discretion is accepted far more easily than otherwise. One considers the major changes in the constitution that occurred in Wales and Scotland. The people of England were not asked about those changes although the matters relating to Wales and Scotland affected many of them. It is right that people should be asked specifically for their views.
On this issue there is no shadow of doubt in my mind that the people of this country should be asked. It is argued uphill and down dale that there is a mandate for it in the election manifesto, and that is a perfectly valid argument. I believe that the people of this country
156
wanted a Labour government. They were perfectly happy to go along with many of the things that the Labour Party wished to put in its manifesto—I for one believe that it contained one or two very good things—and as such accepted the whole deal, warts and all.
I suspect that if people were asked whether they wished to throw away 800 years of constitutional history in the form of a House that provided an effective control over the executive, despite the observations of the noble Lord who just spoke, they would be extremely interested in the matter. Of course, people are very interested in health, education and many of the matters that affect their daily lives—quite rightly so—but I suspect that they are also interested in seeing that there is not unicameral government without an effective check on the legislature which, if this Bill is passed as it stands, will be the case. I believe that it is only right and proper that people should be asked, and for that reason I shall be right behind the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, if he chooses to press this amendment to a Division. It may be that because of what I have said he will think that it is probably better not to do so.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I do not think that the point I wish to raise has been made.
I agree with those who say that this change is as major as the changes in Scotland, Wales and London. I agree that people have not been able to discuss the issue and do not realise the implications. I agree that people are becoming worried about referendums. That is obvious. They have never liked them. Anyone who has taken part in a referendum campaign knows that one has to talk quite a lot about the question as one campaigns. One has to justify the fact that that enormous operation is taking place.
If one campaigned on this referendum, one would have to say, "You are voting on something which may last for only two or three years, but what worries those who have asked for the referendum is that it might last for 15 or 20 years". If we had said that in the Scottish referendum campaign, people would never again have wanted a referendum. I should have been sorry about that. It is a tool which sometimes has to be used. I have from time to time regretted that we have not had one. The recent referendum demonstrates that people are not too keen on having too many in too hot a succession.
On this issue, I do not believe that we should be doing a service to the public or democracy by having a referendum. I believe that we would do the public a disservice. Taking account of all the feelings about the issue at stake, I hope noble Lords will agree that this amendment should not be accepted.
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am happy to follow my noble friend Lady Carnegy in what she said.
I do not know whether, like me, in noble Lords' adolescence they became a fan of the Edwardian writer Saki. If your Lordships were, in the distant past, fans of that writer, no doubt you will remember the story entitled, The Great Weep. Noble Lords will remember that in the story there was a plague in the United

157
Kingdom which unfortunately carried away every member of the British Royal Family. As a result the throne devolved upon the scion of a rather obscure German house who was known as Hermann the Irascible also called the Wise. He happened to come to the throne at a time when there was great agitation for an increase in the franchise, in particular for women. The prime minister who, unlike me, was against the extension of the franchise to women came to the new king, Hermann the Irascible also called the Wise, and said, "Sir, I don't know how I am going to contain this difficulty". The king said, "Well, they want the vote, let them vote. Let them vote not only on who shall be the next government, but on every position of a public nature in the polity; and not only should they have the right to vote but compulsorily they should vote".
It came to pass that that happened; and so onerous was that new duty that there came into being an enormous political movement dedicated towards the revocation of the right to vote; and as a protest a great weep was organised outside the gates of Buckingham Palace. During the course of the agitation accompanying this protest. the prime minister came to the monarch, who advised the prime minister in the following terms: "Prime Minister, in politics it is sometimes worth knowing when to retreat"; and so it came to pass that the obligation to vote was revoked.
I remind your Lordships of that story for one simple reason. Of course the prime minister of the then monarch, Hermann the Irascible also called the Wise, was wrong in his feeling that the women should not be allowed to vote. But there was a great truth which the imaginary monarch encapsulated in his advice to his prime minister: that it is unwise to expect the electorate to do the duty of Parliament; and that there is a judgment to be made that the electorate of this country has other things on its mind but politics. That is perhaps a gauge of the political health of the nation: that the electorate feels able to delegate substantial powers of judgment to its representatives in Parliament.
So long as that is so, it is right that there should be only a limited opportunity for the electorate to express its opinion. How limited that opportunity is is a matter of judgment.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway feels that there should be a less limited opportunity than I do. In this modern age, I am not against the principle of the referendum on all matters, but the choice of the question which we submit to the judgment of the electorate in a referendum should be used with enormous care. The choice should be clear and on a matter of overwhelming importance. I yield to no one, least of all my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, in my sense of the importance of your Lordship's House in any constitutional settlement. But a referendum on stage one, particularly given the Government's—in my view—foolish stance in their election manifesto is not a sufficient reason to submit the matter to a referendum. By that judgment the wisdom of Hermann the Irascible applies.
There is a strong argument for a referendum on a final reform of your Lordships' House under stage two if the Government eventually get to that. I still maintain
158
substantial reservations about whether the Government want to reach stage two. But should they wish to implement some stage two proposals, I think that there is a strong case for a referendum. But I suggest to your Lordships that as regards the transitional arrangements on stage one perhaps we should heed the fictional advice of Hermann the Irascible and, with the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, reject his idea for a referendum on this issue.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, we have been told that a referendum would result in a delay to the coming into force of the proposed Act of Parliament of at least two months. In such an important matter, is a delay of two months important? It seems to me that on such an important matter two months is neither here nor there. We have already heard many people tell us that referenda have been held recently on no less important constitutional matters. I think that that has created a precedent which cannot be disregarded in this case.
Finally, we have been told that the Government have made a great concession: they have accepted the Weatherill amendment. I am sorry, but I believe that the Government accepted the Weatherill amendment because it suited them to do so, whatever they have told us. It suited them for two reasons: first, it would enable them to get their business through; and, secondly, they realised that it would divide the opposition and so kill it.
Lord Desai: My Lords, this amendment reminds me of the time when I used to chair the Islington South and Finsbury Labour Party when on the management committee some people by a show of hands lost a Motion. They then decided to have a roll-call vote. When they lost that they decided that they must have a postal ballot. Until all the electorate had been consulted they were not willing to accept the obvious truth that they had lost.
As a number of noble Lords have said, the present Bill has arisen out of a manifesto commitment. They also said—and I did not agree with them—that Clause 2 had improved the Bill. Therefore, the Bill as previously approved by the electorate is new and improved. It will be strongly approved by this House and another place. I do not believe that after that procedure one should go through the arcane doctrine of expecting the public to take any interest just because we are being reformed.
Some noble Lords have said that if the public rediscovered how good we are, they will begin crying and gnashing their teeth and saying that we should stay here forever. In my view, sadly the opposite will happen. When one cares to ask the public what they think of us one discovers that it is not very much. They think that we in the House of Lords are asleep most of the time and that what we say is most obscure. I have always said that that is because this House lacks legitimacy and effectiveness and the Bill will make the House more legitimate and more effective. The sooner we pass this Bill, the sooner we shall be loved for our efficiency and not for the pomp.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, a short time ago the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, speculated as to whether

159
this matter was causing any heat in the bar at White's. As a member, I can assure him that during Ascot week there is very little chance of that.
I wish to bring another issue to the attention of the House; it has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. The Bill was a government manifesto commitment and a couple of weeks ago we were treated to the amazing sight of the Government Front Bench leading the lobby in order to drive a coach and horses through their own manifesto commitment. We all understand the reasons for that, but the fact is that it is no longer a manifesto Bill and there is an element in this House—a maverick fringe—which believes that it now has a licence to vote against the Bill on Third Reading. Therefore, I suggest that the Government consider accepting the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell because it would cut the ground from under that maverick fringe. I believe that the Government should think about it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying a few words about the point raised by my noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, on the amount of publicity which the Government are giving to the issue of whether the Royal Commission is succeeding in enhancing the value of public debate. I congratulate the Royal Commission and my noble friend Lord Wakeham, first, on deciding to go outside London and, secondly, on having some hearings in public. Therefore, I am disturbed to hear from my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that there is a view that sometimes such hearings are undertaken in conditions of secrecy.
I am sure that the Government will say that they have no responsibility in this matter because it is up to the Royal Commission. That is fair enough as regards the Royal Commission. But as a matter of public policy, they have a responsibility to extend public debate. No doubt they will have seen, in the evidence given to the Royal Commission by the Conservative Party, that a strong case is made out for maximising the publicity surrounding the issue. We do so in order to ensure that the kind of House the country ends up with is the best possible, with the maximum authority and the widest public acceptance.
Turning to the amendment, I am pleased that my noble friend has simplified it in comparison with that tabled in Committee. The current amendment merely requires a referendum before the Act comes into force. No doubt that will remove the objection which the Government made to the Committee stage amendment: that it would cause delay. That amendment sought to delay any referendum until after the report of a joint committee on the findings of the Wakeham commission. This amendment does not do so. I believe that that is wise, although I believe that the Government should not have come forward with the Bill until they had heard the wise words of the Royal Commission.
However, there is one thing about the amendment which I regret. It is the omission of any requirement for a referendum to be conducted on the lines of the Neill recommendations. I do not believe that this House,
160
particularly as in the eyes of the Government it is to become more legitimate, should ever again pose a provision for a referendum which does not require the impartial rules laid out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill. Referendums are a dubious device at the best of times and they should not stand without proper safeguards.
I must also ask my noble friend what is meant by "the people of the United Kingdom". Would a simple majority of the electorate be enough? If fewer than 20 per cent of the electorate turned out, as happened in the recent European elections in the North-East, would my noble friend consider 50 per cent of that 19.6 per cent an adequate majority to abolish this House? How much fewer than 10 per cent of the electorate constitutes "the people of the United Kingdom"? I wonder whether my noble friend might not give the issue further thought if he decides to return once more to the charge on Third Reading.
Turning to the general thrust of the amendment, I agree with much of what my noble friend says. The House of Lords, this House, appears to be the only matter on which the Government are not prepared to entertain a referendum. We have had recent referendums on Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. We are promised, although now with less enthusiasm, which is not surprising, referendums on proportional representation and the euro. Is this House, and the future of Parliament. any less important than those? Yet Parliament is being left out of the process of referendums.
I ask again the question I posed in Committee. What are the Government afraid of? Surely it cannot be the popularity of hereditary Peers. Perhaps it might be. Perhaps the Government are hearing the cry that I and my noble friend Lord Ferrers have heard; that no change is better than this change. Who was right over the issue of the disastrous closed lists in the European elections which caused the Government to fall flat on their face? Was it the House of Commons? No, it was this House which stood for democracy in those weeks and, whatever one's view on Europe, would that it had been heeded.
If my noble friend's amendment were carried today, I should not count on winning a referendum. But if the matter were ever put to the test, we might find that the public saw rather more sense in this House than the Government do. If asked to buy a pig in a poke policy, the policy of the wanton destruction of the old House, without spelling out any plan on how to create a new one, the public might be no more enthusiastic to trust the Government than they were last week on the matter of the euro. I would counsel the Government against counting their chickens on this matter.
I have also taken the trouble to look carefully at the debate on this issue in Committee. There the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in a typically rousing speech from the Liberal Democratic Benches, said that all amendments to this Bill were unnecessary. At that time, the noble Lord also said that he thought there would be a low turnout in a referendum. He has said very much the same today and that, therefore, a referendum should not be held. I thought then that it was curious reasoning and

161
I think it is again today. Has this reasoning turned the Liberal Party against the Welsh Assembly? Has it led them to question the validity of the European Parliament? I think not. In any case, when was a defeatist expectation of apathy an excuse for not trying? After all, have we not heard in recent days the Liberal Democratic leader, Mr Ashdown, excoriating the Prime Minister last week for not trying to combat apathy over the euro?
The whole Liberal Democratic case against this referendum, coming from a party that calls itself the party of consultation, openness, fairness and democracy, and so on, was riddled with inconsistency. It was peppered with an assumption that the people of this country do not care about their Parliament and that it can all be left to the politicians to sort out behind closed doors. Therefore, I welcome the words of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. However, he may find that they do not echo the feeling of his Front Bench.
I turn to the arguments of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. I find these even more surprising. They came down to two matters; that is, that the proposals were in their manifesto and the people, she said, have spoken precisely on this issue. That canard has been exploded by the poll taken by the pressure group, Common Sense for Lords Reform. It found that only 2 per cent of the public was aware that it had voted for such a thing. If only 2 per cent was aware, how have the people spoken precisely on this issue? If one believes they have spoken precisely, what fear is there in asking them to voice their opinion directly on the matter?
The noble Baroness was less than convincing in explaining why a referendum should not be held on a House of Parliament whereas it had to be held on an assembly for London. I may be romantic—I have sometimes been accused of that—but I happen to believe that this House is and should be rather more important than the London assembly. The noble Baroness referred to the fact that the manifesto did not state that there would be a referendum on this House whereas, as she stated, the policy of the Labour Party has always been for a referendum on Scottish devolution. At that point my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish explained that "always" did not mean for a very long time.
I have said that there are certain flaws with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. The definition of "the people" should be tightened. The question may need to be reviewed to express more simply the idea behind my noble friend's amendment; namely, that stage two should be clear and agreed before stage one is put into effect. We would have to weigh carefully whether, given the Government's resistance to any change in the Bill, we would be wise to put the referendum above any other of our priorities to improve the Bill.
As an Official Opposition, we have priorities. We wish, for instance, to contain the patronage available to the Prime Minister. We wish to require the replacement of the membership of the Weatherill 90 by by-elections, and we wish to ensure that there is an extra hurdle for
162
another place in asking this House for an extension to its life beyond five years. We shall return to these issues in the rest of Report stage.
My noble friend's amendment deserves rather more constructive response than it has received from those parties that claim to support the principle of referendums. I hope at this stage my noble friend will not press his amendment, for the technical and practical reasons I have given. I could not support him if he did so.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may briefly respond first to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I believe that some of the same points were addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. Although I have to say to both noble Lords that I am not entirely sure of their direct relevance to the amendments under discussion, they were points which the noble Lord had wished to raise.
Perhaps I may say to him, for the purposes of information, that I understand that the Royal Commission has taken a number of steps to publicise the public meetings it is holding in various places around the country, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I gather this has been reported widely in the local media, both on radio and television news programmes and in the local press. However, some meetings have been better attended than others. I understand from a conversation that I had with those responsible for the organisation that the reason for the variance is not immediately clear. However, I would say, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde suggested I would, that the detail of the organisation and, indeed, the policy of undertaking this kind of consultation, is in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, the chairman of the commission, and it is not for Government to intervene. However, I hope that that is helpful on his initial inquiry.
We have had a lengthy debate today, both on the principles and practice of referendums, as indeed we did in Committee. However, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, feels that he has seriously argued this afternoon that the reason for returning to this subject is partly because he feels that the situation on a referendum has changed fundamentally since he originally proposed it. That was before the House, then in Committee on Amendment No. 31, considered what was then the Weatherill amendment and has now become Clause 2.
I have to say that I am inclined to agree with the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Peyton of Yeovil, and other noble Lords who have contributed. Passing the Weatherill amendment, as it then was, by 352 to 32 in your Lordships' House has weakened rather than strengthened the case for the referendum, as both noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Peyton of Yeovil, clearly explained. I am also inclined to agree with their pessimistic predictions about the size of a poll in such a referendum.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has clearly taken note of some of the points which were made in gentle criticism of the referendum

163
amendment which he proposed in Committee. As he suggested in moving the amendment today, the new variation does not require the findings of the Royal Commission to be known, nor does it require the joint committee to have come to its conclusions before it is held. So, the delay which was inherent in the earlier amendment has, to some extent, been removed. That said, I am afraid the Government find the amendment still unacceptable. The problem that we have with it is the underlying principle. We were elected on the commitment to end the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in your Lordships' House and we are honouring that commitment.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for his clear exposition of representative democracy and its implications in this particular argument. I am also grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for reinforcing those points with his vivid story of Hermann the Irascible, which was all, indeed, entirely relevant to the argument. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, with his typical, pithy comments on the responsibility and duty of government being to govern, seemed to me to put it at its shortest and sharpest.
Following this lead on the responsibility and duty of government to govern, I simply repeat what I said in Committee. The Government's position on a referendum is that when we feel that a referendum is required on any significant change, we will say so in advance in our election manifesto. We did this on the subject of devolution in Scotland and Wales and on the elected mayor for London, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, pointed out.
We did not propose this method on the Human Rights Bill, although as my noble friend Lady Gould said this was of very great, long-term importance. If I remember correctly, we did not face any concerted demands from your Lordships' House or anywhere else that a referendum should be held.
I would also gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has already done so—as I pointed out in Committee, that he argued against a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty which could be regarded as of extreme constitutional significance, in precisely the same way as noble Lords have suggested is the Bill before us today.
Perhaps I may say to the House that the Government's attitude on referendums is not about the relative importance or otherwise of constitutional change but whether it is seen in policy terms to be relevant and necessary on a specific proposition. On the proposal regarding Scottish devolution, many points were of such detail that we were unable to include them in the manifesto. The Bill giving effect to the Scotland Act ran to over 100 clauses. I do not need to emphasise to your Lordships' House how the Government see the present Bill as simple and extremely clear, not to mention extremely short.
On the Scotland question, we published a comprehensive White Paper setting out the proposals in much more detail than we were able to do in the manifesto or during the election, and then we had a referendum.
164
However, the subject of reform of your Lordships' House is quite different. It is, as I say, a simple measure. The relevant passage in the election manifesto of 1997 is longer than the main clause, Clause 1 of this Bill. Our intentions were then clear and remain clear.
I would also suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the clause is technically deficient. It suffers from what he himself described during the debate on the Scottish and Welsh referendums as a lack of ground rules. It fails to make sufficient provision for the conduct of the referendum. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde said, who is to be allowed to vote? Who are the people of the UK referred to in the amendment? As I recall, in the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was grateful for the amendment to the amendment he tabled which attempted to define the electorate as the majority of the parliamentary electorate in the United Kingdom.
There does not seem to be a sign of that particular stipulation which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, regarded as helpful, in the existing proposal, nor does this present amendment deal with the question of funding; nor does it say when the referendum would take place. I would suggest that acceptance of this amendment would, as my noble friend Lady Gould suggested, mean a new Bill which would be required to allow for the referendum. If there were a new Bill there would of course be new delay. Obviously, for those who cannot accept any reform, delay is to be encouraged, but I am glad to say that as I understand the position of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that does not include the Opposition Front Bench. At least I think that is the case.
The Government, for their part, intend to proceed with this Bill without delay and I urge the House to reject this amendment should the noble Lord ask for the opinion of the House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, both for and against the amendment. I hope I will be forgiven if I do not seek to reopen the argument at any great length because we have had a very full debate.
The amendment is commended in principle and has been redrafted to reduce it to principle so that details such as ground rules, funding, thresholds and so forth could be dealt with if this is approved in principle at a later stage on Third Reading. One of the reasons why the provisions were removed as to ground rules was to avoid any hint of pre-emption of the government legislation which is to produce, as I understand it, generic ground rules before too long. This is really put forward as a matter of principle.
There seem to be in essence but three main objections. One is that you cannot have it because you have got to sustain the position of those who made the deal. I do not think I ought to comment further on that save to say that it does not appear to me—and it may not appear to your Lordships—to be a very cogent reason for not having a referendum. The second is that if we have a referendum it will be, I thought the noble and learned Lord said but I accept that he meant will be represented as, Peers against the people. That is such a misrepresentation that I think

165
most of your Lordships would be prepared to accept that. It is a question of seeking to recognise the representations of the people in this House when they are not being recognised by the Government or by the majority in another place.
The third objection—this is the last one of substance (I was trying to take a note of the objections)—was, well, nobody is interested in this place. What on earth do we want to have a referendum for? The public will be bored with it. In any event there is no need to do it. I agree with noble Lords who say that a small turnout is not the point. The point is, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and indeed my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, that there is a need for a wider debate and the sooner it is had the better.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Cranborne when he said that it all comes down to a matter of judgment. I think that is right. My noble friend also said that this referendum process must be used with care. There again I agree with him. Where we disagree, a matter of judgment, is as to whether it should be used on this occasion or not for the reasons that have been given. On that matter I must seek the judgment of your Lordships' House.
5.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No, 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 232.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Aldenham, L.

Forbes, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gainford, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Bathurst, E.

Gormanston, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gray, L.

Berners, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Biffen, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Blaker, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Blyth, L.

Hood, V.

Boardman, L.

Hothfield, L.

Brentford, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bruntisfield, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L. [Teller.]

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Carew, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Chalfont, L. [Teller.]

Liverpool, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Long, V.

Coleraine, L.

McConnell, L.

Coleridge, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cowley, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cross, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Deedes, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Devon, E.

Monson, L.

Donegall, M.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Dudley, E.

Morris, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Ellenborough, L

Munster, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Erroll, E.

Napier of Magdafla, L.

Exmouth, V.

Norrie, L.

Falmouth, V.

Northbrook, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northesk, E.

Fisher, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

166

Oxfuird, V.

Swinfen, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Swinton, E.

Renwick, L.

Torrington, V.

Rodney, L.

Trenchard, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Waterford. M.

Sandford, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Wise, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Swansea, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Addington, L.

Dubs, L.

Ahmed, L.

Eatwell, L.

Aldington, L.

Erne, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Alli, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Falkland, V.

Amos, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ampthill, L.

Freyberg, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Geraint, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Attenborough, L.

Glanusk, L.

Avebury, L.

Glasgow, E.

Bach, L.

Glenamara, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Goodhart, L.

Barnard, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Barnett, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bath, M.

Grantchester, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Berkeley, L.

Grenfell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Grey, E.

Blease, L.

Halsbury, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Hamwee, B.

Bowness, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Bridges, L.

Hanworth, V.

Brightman, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Brookman, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Harrowby, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Haskel, L.

Burlison, L.

Hawke, L.

Burns, L.

Hayman, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Carlisle, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hoyle, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hughes, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Chorley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hylton, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Inchyra, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Colwyn, L.

Islwyn, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Jacobs, L.

Cranborne, V.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Crawley, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal]

Cromwell, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Kennet, L.

David, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Levy, L.

Desai, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Dholakia, L.

Listowel, E.

Diamond, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dixon, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Donoughue, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

167

Lucas, L.

Russell, E.

Ludford, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

St Davids, V.

McIntosh of Hanngey, L. [Teller.]

St John of Bletso, L.

Sandberg, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Serota, B.

McNally, L.

Sewel, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Shannon, E.

Marlesford, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Marsh, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Shepherd, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Meston, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Middleton, L.

Simon, V.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Mishcon, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Molloy, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Monkswell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Strafford, E.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Strange, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Newby, L.

Tenby, V

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Teviot, L.

Nicol, B.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Ogmore, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Thornton B.

Onslow, E

Thurlow, L.

Orme, L.

Thurso, V.

Paul, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Tope, L.

Peston, L.

Tordoff, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Varley, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Vinson, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Walpole, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Randall of St Budeaux, L.

Warner L.

Razzall, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Rea, L.

Weatherill, L.

Reay, L.

Whitty, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Wigram, L.

Richard, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Winston, L.

Romney, E.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

London Underground
5.29 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I wish to repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place by my right honourable friend. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about London Underground.
"London Underground is part of the lifeblood of London, and indeed the whole country, carrying 850 million passengers each year. For too many years,
168
however, under different governments and even under the GLC, investment in the Underground had been inadequate to secure a modern, reliable Underground system.
"As I explained to the House last year, we inherited an investment backlog of £1.2 billion. We intend to modernise the Underground through a £7 billion public/private partnership which will bring long-term stability to the investment programme.
"Train and station services will continue to be operated by a publicly owned, publicly accountable London Underground. However, in order to raise long-term finance, we will invite private companies to take responsibility for upgrading the infrastructure, including track, tunnels, signals, escalators and trains. This would be for a limited period only, after which the upgraded assets would return to the public sector.
"This means that for the first time in living memory London Transport will know what it can spend on investment for years to come. Until now, London Transport investment plans have been approved in theory for a three-year period; in practice, they were chopped and changed every year. I cannot over-estimate to the House the value of being able to plan ahead in this way and to secure greater productivity in the use of capital. It will mean the travelling public—and London Underground employees—will get more reliable, better quality investment, delivered far more efficiently and cost-effectively.
"Over the past year LT has been laying the foundations for the public/private partnership. We have restructured the LT Board with Sir Malcolm Bates as chairman, Denis Tunnicliffe as chief executive, and Derek Smith as managing director of the Underground. New board members with substantial financial and other experience will be announced shortly.
"London Underground is creating within itself three infrastructure companies as well as the operating company which will remain in the public sector throughout, and will be made properly accountable to Londoners through the new mayor.
"I am pleased to announce that London Transport is, today, inviting companies to pre-qualify as bidders to invest in the Underground. Bidders will need to demonstrate the right mix of professional and project management skills and to harness the finance needed to take the Tube into the 21st century.
"Some concern has been expressed about the time needed to get to this point. I can assure the House that we do not intend to repeat the mistakes made by the previous administration in planning the Jubilee line extension (now more than £1 billion over budget), the money wasted in British Rail privatisation, or the Channel tunnel rail link deal, which we had to rescue from financial collapse. We decided to take the time to get it right.
"In the autumn, selected bidders will be invited to submit tenders, based on the rigorous performance and payment system LT has devised. For passengers this will mean fewer delays, greater capacity and a

169
higher quality of service. The Health and Safety Commission have been fully involved because safety is, of course, a top priority.
"We are aware of considerable interest in the market so we have good reason to expect keenly priced bids. However, as I have made clear before. we will not contemplate deals being done if they do not offer best value to the taxpayer.
"For many years I have advocated linking the national railway with the Underground to make it easier for the public to travel to, from, within and across London.
"I have therefore decided to allow LT to explore with Railtrack the a way of linking the national rail network to sub-surface lines in a public/private partnership under which Railtrack would undertake and finance the maintenance and upgrading of the subsurface lines for London Underground—under contract to London Underground; and Railtrack would build links between the Underground and national rail lines.
"This 'London Link' plan opens up exciting new possibilities for integration between surface and Underground rail, providing fast new connections between all the major transport hubs, including London's five airports and the Channel tunnel rail link terminals. In particular, new services could run directly from Heathrow in the West into the City. There will be improved links from Brighton via London Gatwick and East London to North London and beyond. Once these are all in place, all five London airports, including Stansted, Luton and the City airport, will have direct rail links into and through London, all connecting with the Channel tunnel rail link. This plan will deliver a joined-up London—real integration for a world-class city.
"There has been considerable speculation about a possible Railtrack take-over of the Tube. That has never been part of our thinking. Unlike the party opposite, we reject the approach based on selling everything in sight quickly and then hoping for the best.
"Railtrack has confirmed and will announce that it will not be seeking to pre-qualify for the two deep-tube public/private partnership competitions. Let me make it clear that throughout the negotiations we will be imposing rigorous conditions. Railtrack will have to improve on its previous record, particularly on project management.
"The vast majority of London Transport staff serve the public well, often suffering the same frustrations with the ageing infrastructure that passengers experience. I would like to place on record our appreciation for their efforts; and I would like to reassure them of two things—first, that they will benefit more than most by having an upgraded system with a secure investment programme for years to come. Nothing could be worse for LT staff than to leave the Underground to rot. Secondly, I would reiterate the assurances which I gave them last year on employment rights, concessionary fares and pensions.
170
"People have welcomed the guarantees given to staff who transfer to a London Underground infrastructure company; but they ask what will happen to those who transfer to a sub-contractor. I can confirm today that the concessionary travel and pension arrangements also apply to any current LU staff who subsequently transfer to a subcontractor, provided they remain in Tube work. We will take the necessary steps to ensure this.
"London is withstanding severe competitive pressure. We are determined that London should remain the premier city in Europe as we enter the new millennium. Investing in a world-class transport system is a vital element of these plans. We are already expanding the public transport network. By the end of 1999 London will have four major additions to its transport network—new Riverbus services, the full Jubilee Line extension, the Croydon Tramlink and the Docklands Light Railway extension. From next year, the mayor for London will be able to build a properly integrated transport strategy for London.
"At the end of the last century the London Underground was the world's first metropolitan railway. During this century, it enabled London to grow as a great capital city. Our aim as we enter the 21st century is to ensure London remains a global city, with a world-class transport system.
"Madam Speaker, the public/private partnership will bring £7 billion to modernise the Tube. It will get away from stop-go investment and improve the quality of service for passengers. By exploring the imaginative 'London Link' of through-running surface railways and sub-surface Tube lines, London can look forward to a genuinely joined up transport system—no less than Londoners deserve."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House is most grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement on London Underground made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place. I suspect that that is so if only because it gives some welcome relief from the intensity of the earlier debate.
After a two-year period of gestation, I must admit to feeling somewhat let down. Instead of witnessing the birth of a new dawn for London Transport and the Underground system, what we have is news that we can only hope will bring improvement to perhaps part of the system. The background of this Statement is that, under the previous government, investment in the Underground system as a whole was running at around £700 million per annum—£7 billion over a decade. The Government's announced programme of £7 billion is to take place over an undefined but possibly longer period. The people of London may feel that they have been short-changed.
It has been announced that the Government are to invite companies to pre-qualify as bidders to run the Underground in an autumn tender process that will

171
divide the system. That announcement then appears to go on to make it possible for a large section of the system to be placed under the control of Railtrack.
The Government in the persona of the Secretary of State and the Department of the Environment and Transport and the Regions have been running a consistent campaign of vilification against Railtrack, and threatening ever-tightening regulations to bring them under control and reduce their profitability.
The Government have done that to such effect that shares in Railtrack have lost 25 per cent of their value over the last few months. Now, having had their capacity to raise capital diminished as a result of that lower share value, they are suddenly trusted, perhaps, to take over a large part of the Underground system without the apparent necessity of competing through a tender process.
That is a remarkable turnaround. The House is entitled to ask what has brought it about. While there is logic in the integration of Railtrack's system with the sub-surface parts of the Underground system wherever possible, there is no logic in simultaneously campaigning to diminish the economic viability of the preferred contractor. Will the Minister assure the House that that inconsistency will now stop and that the Government will work to ensure that those responsible for the running and improvement of the system will feel that the Government are allies rather than opponents?
The Statement itself does not mention the period of time involved in the possible arrangement with Railtrack. In today's Evening Standard—and it is funny that one has to obtain such information from a newspaper—the period is stated as being 30 years. Will the Minister either confirm that this figure is correct or give the appropriate duration of the arrangement?
Londoners will have rightly been concerned that the disintegration index for the Underground system coined in the Chantrey Vellacott survey as reported in the Evening Standard yesterday has worsened by 20 per cent since the Government came to power. The Government have ducked the issue of clear-cut privatisation for the Underground. They have instead favoured the public/private partnership route that we now see emerging from the smoke screens which have been clouding the atmosphere for so long. Londoners will welcome the clearing of the air, but in view of the past mixture of prevarication and obfuscation, they must be forgiven if they remain sceptical about the future of this system which is so vital to the well-being of the whole of their great community, as it carries so many of them to and from their daily work. Will the Minister give the House any clear information about the time scale for announcements determining the future of the remainder of the Underground system? Without such information, this Statement, while welcome, is incomplete. Londoners are entitled to know when they will be informed of the remainder of the necessary arrangements to secure the future of this essential service.
5.43 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, nobody in this House underrates the importance of the London Underground system. Certainly, a Statement on its future was long overdue.
First, perhaps I may mention some aspects of the Statement which I welcome. The first is the proposal for links between London Underground lines and the surface rail lines to provide rail connections between all of London's airports and between all of them and central London and the CTRL. That will make a useful contribution as a substitute for road travel in those areas.
Secondly, we are pleased that Railtrack is not to take on the entire infrastructure of London Underground, as was rumoured originally. However, there were recent indications that that may not happen.
Thirdly, I welcome the reassurance offered by the Minister and his colleague in the House of Commons to the employees of London Underground. It is a period of great change for them. It must be hoped that they will be treated with good sense and encouraged to take a positive view of the changes which affect them. No one likes change and they need reassurance.
However, we regret, even now, that the Government have chosen the PPP route, albeit that it is far preferable to outright privatisation and total loss to the public sector of the assets involved. We should prefer some sort of public interest company. However, given that that is the Government's decision, I wonder what has been the reaction among government Members to the Tony Travers's articles which confirm what many of us had supposed for a long time; namely, that because it is more expensive to borrow money in the private than in the public sector, there must be a danger that financing public services from private money will mean an increase in fares—in other words, the cost to the user. Will fares be capped?
Secondly, Railtrack has apparently been allocated the near-surface level of the London Underground track to play with, thereby avoiding the problems inherent in modernising the deep-track lines—for example, the Piccadilly line. Are the Government confident that they can make Railtrack perform to its promises? Everyone knows that it is now facing about £20 million in fines arising from lower than promised performance in relation to rail services. Londoners will not forgive a government who allow similar back-sliding on the London Underground.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, the Statement is defective with regard to any information about timing. With tenders being invited in the autumn, when do the Government expect the tender process to be completed? How does that fit in with the election of the mayor? When will the strategic thinking and planning for London transport by rail be in the hands of London's mayor? The noble Lord spoke about joined-up thinking. Will joined-up thinking and joined-up London begin before or after the election of the mayor?
I turn briefly to the competition for the two deep-level rail contracts. What criteria will the Government use to test bidders beyond their financial viability? What are the building blocks of what are called London

173
Underground's rigorous performance and payment systems? With breakdowns on the system every 16 minutes contributing to ever less satisfactory service levels, will minimum standards and levels be among those criteria? How will value for money be measured? Will a public sector comparator be used? What protection will be given to the property currently in London Underground's portfolio?
Perhaps I may recap my main areas of query. We are worried about the likely fare increases and we want to know whether they are to be capped. We want to know about the public sector comparator. We want to know about minimum passenger level services; and we want to know when the mayor will have an impact on the various negotiations.
We share the Government's stated ambitions for London. Like the people of London arid its visitors, we shall be watching to see what happens. By their acts, we shall judge them—and I do not mean Acts of Parliament.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for not entirely rejecting this proposition. They gave it a slightly cool welcome. Nevertheless, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is wrong to say that this is incomplete. It extends the whole concept of public transport within London. We are not merely talking about who owns, manages and invests in the London transport system as we have known it; we are talking about a new interface between the tube line and rail services in London. which will focus on the strategic development of that network and, in particular, provide a means of transfer through London, including from London's airports, terminals and the main Underground interchanges. It is a different and wholly more imaginative concept than one of straightforward privatisation; or, indeed, of going on running London Transport in the way that it has been run previously.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, accused us of inconsistency in our attitude to Railtrack. We are not inconsistent. We have a consistency of purpose here; namely, to make Railtrack perform. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, there have been problems in its performance on the rail network. There are serious inadequacies under the regime that we inherited in terms of enforcing performance standards on the railway side, both for Railtrack and for the operating companies that we are intent on addressing.
If we conclude a successful contract with Railtrack, as I believe we shall, it will be important for that contract to be tight and for it to hold Railtrack to performance standards. That will obviously be a matter of the most intense negotiations over the coming weeks. I cannot be absolutely precise on the questions about the final outcome of that contract which the noble Baroness asked towards the end of her remarks, but it will be a tight contract and it will be performance oriented. There is no inconsistency here; we are consistent in our aim of making Railtrack, and the other contributors to the public transport system of London, perform.
174
The noble Lord asked why we had ducked the issue of privatisation. The PPP is a much more imaginative and flexible system of financing public transport. It will provide not only the mobilisation of private capital but also the mobilisation of private sector expertise, together with a degree of stability in the investment pattern for London Transport, which it has long since missed.
In response to the question from the noble Baroness as to whether that means that the cost will be higher, the PFI projects that we have pursued indicate that the benefits in terms of both time-scale in meeting performance criteria and in improved management and productivity gains will be substantially higher to offset any additional cost of borrowing which the private sector may incur. Indeed, the ability to raise capital may make it easier in the private sector than in the public sector. I believe that we are right to choose the public/private partnership road here.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness both asked about the timetable on the Railtrack element and with regard to other parts of the Underground network. As far as concerns Railtrack, we shall engage in negotiations immediately and we hope to conclude them as rapidly as possible. In regard to the other parts, we have now set up the structure for bidding. We have made it clear in the past that we shall not be rushed into giving specific dates and thereby being hamstrung by them. I believe that that was a problem encountered by the previous government with the rather tight political deadline that they managed to follow in order to rush through rail privatisation. We are not making the same mistake. I do not believe that it will be long before we can also make a decision on the other parts of the Underground network.
The noble Baroness asked whether the cost of this would be loaded on to fares and about the implications for fares. It is not expected that the cost of investment would be loaded on to fares; indeed, no decisions have been made so far on the actual fare levels in the immediate future. But the modelling on which decisions took place was based on the assumption that fares would increase by no more RPI plus 1 per cent in January 2000 and January 2001. Beyond that, I believe that the position will be stable.
London Transport is currently responsible for setting fares. Under the legislation which we considered earlier this week, the mayor will eventually assume that responsibility once elected. While talking about the mayor, and in response to the noble Baroness, I should point out that the mayor will be involved in the decisions about the running of London Transport, once he or she is elected, in the interim period before the PPP contracts are signed and before the Underground is passed to Transport for London and to the mayor. Railtrack will be working under contract to the London Underground which, via TfL, will be accountable to the mayor. It is therefore very important that the mayor should play a positive role in the later stages of the PPP competition. Amendments which the Government intend to bring forward on the GLA Bill will put London Transport and TfL under a duty to consult and co-operate during the interim period.

175
I believe that this is an important step forward and one which, it is to be hoped, will involve a detailed and tight contract to ensure the performance of Railtrack; but it will also extend the nature of the urban transport system within London in a very significant and important way to the benefit both of its inhabitants and the travellers to and from London.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may point out that he did not cover one question that I asked about the duration of the possible arrangement with Railtrack.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. My eyes strayed passed that question in my notes. As with the other public/private partnerships on the three different elements of the Underground, we have talked about a period of 25 to 30 years. Obviously, the precise period may well be subject to some degree of negotiation, depending on assessments of the funding. However, it is of the order of 30 years.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the intervention on the sub-surface routes as regards London Underground and Railtrack is long overdue. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on coming forward with this proposal. It will be of enormous benefit to Londoners. However, perhaps I may ask my noble friend something about the proposed investment and the £7 billion figure. Can he tell us whether it is a Railtrack-type definition of "investment"? On the national network it was said to be £27 billion over 10 years, but, when we looked at the smallprint, it turned out to be £6 billion of its investment, £4 billion from other people and the rest was put down to maintenance. How much of that sum will be actual new investment from Railtrack in this proposal for the sub-surface routes?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the sub-surface mileage and the investment requirements amount to something slightly over one-third of the total network. Therefore, one could conclude that it is something over a third of the total £7 billion. Railtrack will raise some of that money itself, while some of it will be covered by the normal income on those routes which eventually come to Railtrack. It is of the order of about £2 billion of that £7 billion.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I have two questions for the Minister, both of which, strangely enough, came from both Front Benches on this side of the House but which I do not believe were fully answered. First, can the Minister say why, despite the fact that there has been a sustained attack on Railtrack for the past two years, it is suddenly the acceptable and only body which should have this initial contract? We should know why Railtrack is suddenly all right.
Secondly, the Minister very kindly said—and I did not get this when I heard the Statement in the other place—that the mayor would be brought in for consultations in the second part of the agreement.
176
Everyone knows that it is the second part of the agreement that really matters; everyone is waiting to see what PPP actually means and what this Government will suggest. Can the Minister say how the Government will react if the mayor says, "This simply isn't a good enough deal for Londoners"?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, before I respond to the noble Lord, perhaps I may make a slight correction to my last comment to my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I believe that the figure is nearer £3 billion than £2 billion; in other words, it is between the two, but nearer £3 billion.
As to Railtrack's credibility in this area, there have clearly been problems about its performance on the infrastructure of the national rail network. It has been important both that the Government have drawn attention to that publicly—indeed, it does not take the Government alone to draw attention to that—and that we have taken steps to try to improve its performance. We have to deal with a rail network which we inherited. Therefore, in practice, Railtrack is the main infrastructure owner of the national rail network. It is, of course, a clear front-runner for any interface between that network and a contract from London Underground to run the parts of the Underground system which would most easily be integrated with that network.
As I said earlier, the contract which London Underground will have with Railtrack will ensure adherence to the performance criteria which we shall set in the new regime. It is important to recognise that although Railtrack has failed in certain respects, it has a wealth of expertise which, if given its head, could deliver a modern, up-to-date and effective new rail system not just for London but for the country as a whole. There have been problems with project management within Railtrack which must now be dealt with.
I now turn to the question of the mayor. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, may be straining at the leash here as the mayor will not be involved in this matter in the early stages; I referred to the latter stages. We intend to put the PPP in place before we hand the Underground part of the system over to the mayor. In the latter stages, we shall consult closely with the mayor on PPP. I consider it unlikely that the mayor would disagree that the PPP is a major step forward for London in terms of the mobilisation of resources and expertise. I am sure that any mayoral candidate, and any actual mayor, would recognise that that process is a major advantage for London. I think it unlikely that the mayor would wish to dissociate himself from what I believe is a favourable step.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in the early part of the Statement, which I warmly welcome, the Minister referred to London Transport as part of the lifeblood of London. It is a lifeline for many people who work in London but who live outside the London Transport area. I live in Loughton which is on the Central Line. It does not comprise part of the Greater London area. Loughton, Debden and Epping had no say whatsoever on whether a Greater London Authority

177
should be set up; nor on whether a mayor is appropriate. I support the establishment both of a Greater London Authority and of a mayor.
The people in my area are concerned at the following words which appear in the legislation. I refer to the words,
"in so far as they consider it necessary".
Are the Minister and his colleagues seized of the possibility that there could be many disgruntled people who work in London, but who live just outside the area we are discussing, who have not been consulted on what the mayor is able to do in this matter? We should bear in mind that these people, who pay their taxes and their rates, are entitled to a fair crack of the whip. They would not want to see services outside the main area neglected for any reason whatsoever.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with all due respect to my noble friend Lord Graham and to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I have always known that there are a number of disgruntled people in Essex! The mayor will he elected by the people of the GLA area. Nevertheless, the main function of the whole authority will be strategic. It is essential that the transport planning department of that authority takes into account the needs and interests of neighbouring authorities. It is important that the planning bodies of the GLA co-operate with the planning bodies outside its area, including the counties, to deliver a transport system for the South East and, in some cases, beyond.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I have three questions. First, as an aid to evaluation of the PPP, will the Government now publish the Price Waterhouse study which, it is rumoured, shows that a public interest company borrowing externally is the best deal? Secondly, will there he open competition for bidding for the other lines in future and if not, why not? Thirdly, as the Statement and the proposals concern lines including the District and Circle Lines, and therefore Westminster Underground Station, when is access from the Palace of Westminster to Westminster Underground Station likely to be improved, given that anything that we can do to encourage Members of both Houses to come here by public transport would be desirable?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I trust that Members of neither House need any additional encouragement to come here by public transport. The station at Westminster is being refurbished—that process has continued for some time—as part of the Jubilee Line extension. That will be completed by the end of the year. The station itself may be improved thereafter.
As I understand the position, it will be difficult for us to publish the whole of the Price Waterhouse study for reasons of confidentiality and so forth. We have already published a summary of the Price Waterhouse study. As regards the other two contracts for the Underground system, as I have indicated we are seeking bidders for both of those under a system of open competition.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, did my noble friend note the observation of the noble Lord,
178
Lord Dixon-Smith, who said that he felt let down? However—this is much more relevant—is he aware that many Londoners feel let down by the failures and neglect of their transport system during virtually two decades of Tory government? Will my noble friend say something about the processes of integration that are to be undertaken between surface and underground transport systems, in particular with regard to the airports? Are the consultations to be dealt with on a comprehensive basis to enable the whole system to be seen as an integrated one? What form will those consultations take and when do the Government propose to embark on them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, although I would not put it quite so bluntly, I associate myself with my noble friend's view that there was a long period when Londoners felt acutely that their public transport needs had been neglected. The previous government belatedly recognised some of the problems, but that was far too late. We have ended up with an infrastructure of the totality of London Transport which will take a long time to sort out. However, we are determined to do that.
The Government are considering this matter in a totally integrated fashion both in terms of awarding the contracts and in terms of the structure which we seek to establish in Transport for London which will cover both the Underground and the buses. It will cover the strategic road network, the river service and many other aspects of the London Transport infrastructure. For the first time, those services will be considered together in a strategic assessment. That will, of course, need to have an interface with the airport authorities and the authorities outside London in terms of strategic planning. That process will begin as soon as the new institutions are in place. In the meantime, plans and options are being developed within the department in consultation with the operators.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I have two questions for the Minister. The first concerns the capacity of Railtrack to take on additional work. I think we are conscious that Railtrack has done some excellent work on track and stations. There are many good things to be said about what Railtrack has achieved. However, there is also a sense that Railtrack is struggling to fulfil its existing obligations. It is rightly under pressure to speed up the process of dealing with bottlenecks and pinch points and to provide additional capacity for freight traffic in particular. Is it reasonable or wise to add this additional burden? I think simply in terms of engineering capacity and managerial competence. Should a large amount of extra work be put on Railtrack at this stage? Is the Minister satisfied that it has the capacity to deal with it?
My second question concerns regulation. Can the Minister tell us whether the sub-surface track which is linked with the existing mainline system will be subject to the same kind of regulation, and, on this work, will Railtrack be subject to the strategic rail authority in the same way as the mainline system?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in terms of Railtrack's capacity, we are confident that it can provide, develop and expand the necessary expertise to take over. It may have to acquire and demonstrate additional skills, particularly

179
in the project management and overall strategic management areas. If there are deficiencies in those areas they will become apparent during the negotiating period. However, I do not believe that to be so. By the time we have concluded a firm agreement with Railtrack I believe those doubts will have been removed. However, I cannot give an absolute assurance at this point. I believe that Railtrack is working on those matters.
As to the regulations which will apply, although Railtrack is one company it will be responsible for two different parts of the system. It will manage the part of the national rail system which comes into London on the one hand, and it will be managing on behalf of London Transport, under contract to London Underground and TFL, the part of the Underground system it takes over on the other. There will therefore be regulation under the Strategic Rail Authority, taking over the responsibilities of the franchising director and others, on the national rail side; and it will be under the GLA regulations and the power of the mayor on the other side. Of course, we are also building into the GLA Bill a co-operative structure between the mayor and the Strategic Rail Authority for rail services within, into and affecting the London area. There will be a squaring of the circle. However, it is true that the Underground will be under the mayor and the rail network will be under the Strategic Rail Authority.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend for the Statement. Perhaps he can clarify two points. First, if there are to be any additional costs associated with the PPP arrangements, I understand from what my noble friend said that these would not be borne by passengers, subject to the ceiling of increases in fares of RPI plus 1 per cent. Can my noble friend give an assurance that the London taxpayers will not be asked to make up any difference, given that they already subsidise the rest of the country to the tune of many billions of pounds a year?
Secondly, I understand the desire not to give specific dates as to when certain things will happen—it would be improper to rush the negotiations—but can my noble friend give an assurance that the public will begin to see the benefit of the new arrangements before the end of the first term of the first mayor of London?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as far as concerns the burden on the London taxpayer, there is no implication in these arrangements. The whole objective of the arrangements is to ensure that there will not be an additional burden on the London taxpayer, as there would have been had we put the whole of the London Underground network under the direct control of the GLA. I can therefore give my noble friend the first assurance that he seeks.
As to the time-scale for improvements, a significant number of improvements will be visible during the first period of office of the mayor of London—that is, within the next five years. However, I must caution my noble friend that some of the benefits of this investment will take some considerable time. There will be an investment allocation of £7 billion over a period of 15 years for the Underground network. This contract will run for 25 to 30 years. We have a long backlog to make up. We inherited
180
a £1.2 billion backlog and it will take some time to make it up. However, I believe that we will see some improvement in the time-scale to which my noble friend referred.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister believe that the radical approach—on which I congratulate the Government—is the right approach? There is no doubt that the London Underground is in many ways archaic. One obvious example is the Northern Line; another is that even today stored value tickets are not being sold to ordinary people who do not have season tickets or weekly tickets. One cannot buy stored tickets, a system which has been available elsewhere for 20 years.
I have considerable sympathy with the right reverend Prelate about the decision to negotiate with Railtrack. I was involved for five unhappy years with British Rail, and Railtrack still employs a number of its managers, many of whom are second rate people. Did the Government consider handing the matter over to Hong Kong MTR, which is superb? After all, Felixstowe docks now belong to Hong Kong; they are extremely well run and serve Britain very well indeed. Did not the Government consider anything a little more imaginative than bringing in Railtrack?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as far as concerns the ticketing system, if the noble Lord would care to go across to Westminster station—despite the unattractive report of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—he will see that, very recently, at the bottom of all the automatic machines there is one which says "Carnet". That provides for what I think the noble Lord means by "stored tickets". For decades it has been one of my main bugbears that London Underground has not provided that facility; at last we have it.
So far as concerns Railtrack, because of the benefits of integration with the national rail system the Government were right to explore fully the prospects of the sub-surface areas going to Railtrack and it being able to provide directly that degree of integration. We needed to explore those options first. I hope that we have very nearly come to an effective conclusion on that. Of course it is open to the Hong Kong railway and anyone else to bid for the other parts of the London Underground system.

House of Lords Bill
6.17 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 not moved.]
Clause 1 [Exclusion of hereditary peers]:
Lord Randall of St Budeaux Lord Randall of St Budeaux moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6 I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 59 and 62.
Perhaps I may first give a brief overview of the effect of the amendments and then explain my rationale for bringing them forward. I will give then a brief description of each amendment.
The principle upon which this group of amendments is based is that the heirs of hereditary Peers would lose their automatic right of becoming Members of the House of Lords. It means that all hereditary Peers would remain in the House until they die but they will not be succeeded by their heirs. In other words, after the Bill receives Royal Assent, the House will remain exactly as it is now. This approach does not countenance an instantaneous and arbitrary removal of a large proportion of the membership of the House.
However, to remain consistent with the Labour Party manifesto, it is necessary to introduce immediately fairer voting arrangements in the House of Lords. I believe it is unreasonable and not at all sensible that the Conservative Party should have in perpetuity a large, overwhelming majority over the Government, in this case the Labour Party. In my view, there is not a sound case for retaining this voting imbalance. My proposal therefore introduces a weighted voting system which puts the Conservative and Labour Parties, to all intents and purposes, on an equal footing, the independence of the House being maintained through the votes of all other Peers. To put it simply, all Peers would have the right to vote. Under the current membership figures of the House, the weighting would result in Government votes being multiplied by 2.7. That is all we need to do. Implementation is simple.
The principle on which my proposals are based is, first, to leave the membership of the House as it is at the moment but not to allow Peers who die to be succeeded by their heirs and, secondly, to multiply Labour votes, as Contents and Not-Contents, by 2.7. That is all that needs to be done for phase one reform of the House of Lords. What I have said is utterly consistent with the manifesto. Nothing more needs to be done.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am intrigued by my noble friend's assertion that everything he says is consistent with the Labour manifesto. I do not know how hard he fought before 1st May 1997. I know how hard I did. I know the belief that after 90 years of travail a Labour government would immediately remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House. My noble friend's proposition allows hereditary Peers to continue to sit and vote in the House but the imbalance in voting strength is dealt with by increasing the value of a Labour vote. That may be an ingenious idea. but I should like my noble friend to explain a little further how he sees that to be consistent with the Labour manifesto and also to explain what he thinks the rest of us were fighting the election for.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I shall try to give my noble friend what I think is a fair answer. All along we have been discussing the removal of hereditary Peers, but we have not had one debate in the House on how we should go about it. Furthermore, there is nothing in the manifesto about the speed with which hereditary Peers should be removed. So there is consistency with the manifesto. The principle on which my proposals are based is not to replace hereditary Peers with their heirs and then to multiply the Labour vote by 2.7.
182
Perhaps I may explain why I have submitted these amendments. I shall do so by referring to two points of relevant Labour Party history, the party of which I have been a member for 35 years, and the party for which I have great affection. The first major reason for Lords reform arises from the poll tax defeat. I was in the House of Commons at the time and everyone was furious, including me. It was a huge public relations disaster for the House of Lords. As a consequence there is overwhelming support for properly balancing the voting in this House so that the Government can get their business through on a fair basis. The Labour Party felt that the only way to get that balance right was immediately to get rid of hereditary Peers, because hereditary Peers are predominantly Conservative. I believe that that view was erroneous.
My second point about Labour Party history—and we should be open about it—is that there is still in the Labour Party a tumbrel mentality. The Labour manifesto was written when Labour were in opposition, and there were, and still are, people in the Labour Party who, like Madame Defarge, wanted to see the elimination of hereditary Peers at all costs and as quickly as possible. Those elements of Labour Party history are at the heart of the Bill and will be seen as part of Labour's constitutional—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, will my noble friend give way?
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I am not giving way. There is no "Order" at all. I will give way when I am ready.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I am told that it is a custom of the House that I should give way. It is at my discretion when to give way and I will give way. However, that does not mean to say that one has to finish in the middle of one's sentence. I will be courteous and give way in a moment.
Those elements of Labour Party history are at the heart of the Bill and they will also be seen as part of Labour's constitutional reform package, which so far has been highly commendable. I give way.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend most sincerely. My noble friend gave two reasons for his proposal. I was waiting for the issue of democracy to arise. One of the reasons that the Labour Party wrote this into the manifesto concerned the position of the hereditary principle in a modern democracy. I was puzzled not to hear my noble friend say that because that is at the heart of what we are discussing.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. I do believe that we live in a democracy and we have to respond to that. That is why everything I am saying is utterly consistent with the Labour Party manifesto.

183
Perhaps I may deal with the way in which the voting system will work. As a result of the Labour Party's submissions on this issue, I have swung away from the idea of having an elected House—I made that point at earlier stages of the Bill—towards the idea of the strong independence of the House.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I should now like to deal briefly with how this manifesto commitment was taken forward.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I am most grateful. My noble friend said that what he is advocating is not inconsistent with the Labour Party's manifesto pledge in as much as the manifesto did not mention timing. The manifesto pledge to which the Labour Government are committed is to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House. I understood my noble friend to say that he supports the views that the heirs and successors of hereditary Peers would not be allowed to sit and vote in the House. Does he not agree that there is some degree of inconsistency in that view? If the manifesto commitment had been, as my noble friend believes, that the heirs and successors of hereditary Peers should sit in the House, then the manifesto would have been framed in that way. But it was not framed in that way. It was precisely framed to say that the existing hereditary Peers could not sit and vote in this House.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, there is no mention in the manifesto of the rate at which one should get rid of hereditary Peers. It does not state that at all. However, with the passage of this Bill the process of removing hereditary Peers from this House will have started. I support the notion of the removal of hereditary Peers. There is no disagreement between my noble friend and myself on that point. All we are talking about is how we go about it. I propose that we go about it in a way that is in the interests of the House. That is the essence of my case.
Perhaps I may now examine briefly how the manifesto commitment was taken forward. There have been a number of serious deficiencies. At this stage I shall mention just two. I do not want merely to be negative, but, first, there has been no strategy on how the question of reform should be conducted. That is very serious. As a consequence, we have come up with a solution which—I believe the House will agree—is far from optimal. That invariably happens when there is not a strategy and agreed assumptions. Secondly, there has not been a working partnership between the House and the Government on reform. Therefore, there is no consensus across the House. I have always believed that the House had sufficient power to work in partnership.
Perhaps I may summarise my remarks in Committee on strategic objectives. They are central points and I want to place them on the record. In order to arrive at
184
a sensible and acceptable solution for phase-one reform, it was necessary to take account of the various conflicting interests; for example, the interests of the Government—first, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons if necessary—in drawing up a set of agreed objectives. I believe that they should take the following form. These are the seven strategic principles on which reform should be based.
First, the hereditary principle is not sustainable as a mechanism for automatically gaining membership of the House of Lords. Secondly, the passage of phase one of the legislation must not weaken the House of Lords by a large and arbitrary reduction in the number of Peers at a time when the House of Commons is weak and is failing to bring the executive to account. Thirdly, neither the Government nor the House of Lords should take an absolutist or rigid approach regarding the speed at which hereditary Peers leave the House of Lords. Instead, we should go for consensus. That means accepting that there are conflicting interests and that there must be compromise on all sides.
The fourth strategic point is that it is not sensible for one party to have a large overall majority in this House. That must be dealt with immediately by the Bill. The fifth point is that we must minimise the risks of reform by avoiding at all cost a Big Bang approach in removing hereditary Peers. Point six is that the Government, in formulating reform policy, should not treat our hereditary colleagues as if the Government were a bad Victorian employer. A number of hereditary Peers are hurting as a result of the way they have been treated. Finally, a solution to reform should be simple. Complexity does not help at all. That strategic approach results in the decision not to replace hereditary Peers, and the weighted voting solution emerges.
In taking forward the reforms, where do these amendments fit into phase one? First, there is the Weatherill amendment. The House voted for it. It is the will of the House and the details of the amendment are therefore not challengeable. But since there is no consensus, there is a case for adding an alternative solution to the Weatherill proposals in order to provide the House with a choice.
If there were, say, one or two proposals in addition to the Weatherill proposals, they should be considered at Third Reading and the preferred solution should be chosen by the House. There would then be a consensus in favour of a particular solution and that would then be respected. That would provide a basis for some kind of consensus across the House.
Perhaps I may conclude by speaking to the amendments that are before the House—
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain one point? He thought that an alternative ought to be presented to the House. It was not clear whether he thought that it ought to be included in the Bill so that it can be presented to the other House, or considered at Third Reading and decided by this House. It would be helpful if he would explain.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, we could vote on these matters tonight but, if they were defeated,

185
that would be the end of the proposal. I have not yet decided how to react; I have not yet heard the debate. My inclination is to take the matter through to Third Reading, but I shall have to see how matters work out. I hope that that answers the question.
Perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 6 and 9. They are very simple. They propose merely that hereditary Peers remain Members of this House until they die and that they will not be succeeded by their heirs—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may point out to my noble friend the statement in the Companion to the Standing Orders that noble Lords opening should keep within the 20 minutes normally allowed.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, speaking as a senior Back-Bencher on this side of the House, I have some sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Randall, as he has been interrupted on so many occasions. That is not the custom of this House.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, there seems to be a consensus in the House that I should continue and ignore that stifling of debate.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 9 propose that hereditary Peers remain Members of this House until they die and that they will not be succeeded by their heirs. From the report that I produced for Members of this House, a copy of which has been placed in the Library, it can he seen that after three Parliaments 50 per cent of hereditary Peers will have died. That amounts to about 400 Peers. The retention of a few hereditary Peers in this House has no strategic significance whatsoever. Perhaps the Front Bench can tell me now—I am prepared to give way—what strategic significance there would be in having a few remaining hereditary Peers. I give way now. There is no response—a Mme Defarge factor only perhaps.
I now turn to Amendment No. 59, which introduces the concept of weighted voting. Were we to keep the House as it is and not allow the heirs of hereditary Peers to succeed their fathers, it is vital to recognise that there must be a weighted voting system. The arithmetic of that voting system is shown on pages five and six of my report in the Library. Therefore, the essence is to have balanced voting which is fair so that the Government get their business and to retain the sense of independence of this House. I give way.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I hope that my intervention does not count as my contribution to the debate. I believe that the noble Lord is referring to Amendment No. 58, not Amendment No. 59.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I appreciate the advice. I am sure that the Clerk will confirm that. I see him nodding. The noble Lord is quite right.
186
What does it mean to have a fair balance of voting and to retain the sense of independence? It means that in practice the Tories and Labour would have equal numbers of votes. All one must do is multiply the Contents and Not-Contents on the Labour side by 2.7. The independence of the House would be maintained via the Cross-Benchers, Liberal Democrats and others.
Finally, in relation to Amendment No. 62, I accept that weighted voting is a new concept. However, it is a vital part of these proposals. Accordingly, Amendment No. 62 proposes the establishment of a commission to verify the weighting factors and assumptions that I have made. I do not think that it is right that one individual should do that; there should be verification. My purpose in introducing the commission is solely to enhance the confidence of your Lordships' House in the overall principle. I beg to move.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, as the amendment stands also in my name. When I came into this House I found it perfect. I liked and admired all the hereditary Peers and life Peers—Conservative Peers, Labour Peers, Cross-Bench Peers and even the Liberal Democrat Peers. It was a very happy place. With the introduction of this Bill, it has changed. I believe that if we support the noble Lord, who is also my noble friend, we can go back to that golden age. Of course, if we all lived for ever, it would be even nicer.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I am extremely glad to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. I have some admiration for him as he battled against constant interruptions, particularly from his own side. He is a great friend of the House. I am also glad to be part of the cross-party support for Amendments Nos. 6 and 9. As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, stated, it is important that the House should have an alternative to the Weatherill amendment to consider, as many like myself who supported it did so based on the view that there was nothing else on offer. Now there is. Overall, the great advantage of the noble Lord's proposal is that, in spite of worries by some Peers that it must be very complicated, it involves only a very simple piece of mathematics for it to be understood; and it is also easy to execute in the. Voting Lobbies.
I should like to address other concerns expressed in Committee. First, it is said that it departs from the principle of one man, one vote. The very reason it departs from that principle is to create greater balance in the voting strengths of the main parties. Although it leads to our party giving up its natural majority here, that cannot be a bad thing, especially when it gives the Cross-Benchers such an important role.
Secondly, some have criticised the weighted voting system because the weighted votes of the government party are now only just superior to those of the main opposition party. My noble friend Lord Jopling believed that the Government should have parity with all opposition parties. He was also worried that the Government's business might be overturned by the votes of the Cross Benches. This shows the impartiality of the voting system.

187
It is highly likely that under the Weatherill amendment there will be a caucus of hereditary Peers for some years to come. I believe that an alternative amendment which also allows some hereditary Peers to remain in this House for a limited period is not incompatible with what the Government have conceded under the Weatherill amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I oppose these amendments partly for the reason of consistency. My noble friend said that his arguments were fully consistent with the Labour Party manifesto. I remind him of two specific commitments in that manifesto: first, that the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords would be ended by statute; and, secondly, that that would be the first stage in a process of reform. For my noble friend's amendment to come to fruition, something like 50 years would have to elapse. I do not believe that when the Labour Party wrote its manifesto it contemplated starting the second stage 50 years from now. I fail to understand how there can be any consistency in that. My noble friend said that it had nothing to do with speed. We are talking not about speed, but about a very extended timetable which was not part of the Labour Party's thinking when it put those two commitments in the manifesto. I should like my noble friend to answer the specific question: when will the second stage begin—I understand that it will be in about 50 years—and finish?
I also have a problem with the weighted voting system. I understand that my noble friend's motive in moving the amendment is to attempt to redress the political balance. How does his proposal to make this House a carbon copy of the House of Commons—he said that the government party should have a greater number—relate to another manifesto commitment that no political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords? That is another inconsistency.
I have other concerns about the weighted vote. I firmly believe that every Member of the House should be treated as equal. The only way to do that is to have an equality of votes. I do not accept that a system under which one Member has 2.7 votes and another has just one vote has anything to do with equality. If I were to be mischievous—this has been suggested to me—it would be very tempting for somebody perhaps with no political affiliation to go onto the Labour Benches and then vote in the Opposition Lobby, thus giving the Opposition 2.7 votes every time. The process becomes a little farcical. It would be extremely difficult to explain the imbalance in the voting system to people outside this House.
Another concern is that if a Government Peer went into the Opposition Lobby it would have to be recorded as 2.7 votes. The Clerks would then have the responsibility of identifying the political affiliations of those who had gone into each Lobby. That is something that we have never done, and I believe that it would be
188
very wrong. In reply to a similar question at Committee stage my noble friend said:
"All you would need to do is to find out how many government Peers were in the Contents Lobby and how many in the not-Contents Lobby, and multiply by 2.7. Lo and behold!"—[Official Report, 11/5/99; col. 1143.]
That might be simple. I have no problem with the mathematics. I do not have the problem referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I understand the position, but I believe that it is unfair and ludicrous and would put the Clerks of the House in the difficult position of having to identify politically who has gone through each Lobby. I think that that would be unfair.
I wish to ask my noble friend a number of questions about the commission. Who will serve on it? Who will determine who serves on it? For how long will it sit? What will be its terms of reference? I am worried about the wording of the amendment which implies to me—I may misread it—that this House will have no say on whether or not to accept the recommendations. They will go straight into Standing Orders. That is not acceptable. This House should have the right to determine what does or does not go into Standing Orders. I have a problem with that amendment, too.
Finally, although the overwhelming acceptance by this House of the Weatherill amendment creates a disparity of numbers because there are more Conservative than Labour hereditary Peers, that can be dealt with easily by creations rather than what I believe will be interpreted as a complex and farcical system. Rather than returning at Third Reading with options, we should determine the issue today.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, in general terms I supported the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, in Committee although I advocated a system of weighted voting whereby the government of the day would always be in a minority in this House in order to provide a permanent check on the executive. I made those comments then and do so again now in a totally apolitical sense. It is nothing to do with who happens to form the government of the day; it is a general issue. However, the noble Lord has now produced a proposal which will give effectively the balance of the vote, properly—I applaud it—to the Cross-Benchers, and the Liberal Democrats. I am not quite sure about the Liberal Democrats, but I endorse the view that the Cross-Benchers in this House have given enormous benefit to the House and should and would provide a useful check and balance on the powers of the executive. The proposal of the noble Lord does that extremely effectively.
I have one quarrel only. Perhaps I misread Amendment No. 58. Subsection (1) appears to me to be effectively contradicted by subsection (2). Subsection (1) states that the total number of votes to be cast belonging to the party of the Government shall be greater than the total number of votes of the Official Opposition. I agree with that. However, subsection (2) refers to,
"any vote cast by a member belonging to",
and so on; I shall not weary noble Lords by repeating all the amendment. That would depend on how many Members were on which side. I do not think that subsection (2) provides what the noble Lord intends.

189
However, that is a technicality. If the noble Lord wants to progress further with the amendment, he might want to consider subsection (2) of Amendment No. 58.
With that exception, I warmly support the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I admire the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, because she says that she understands the proposal. In Committee, I said that I did not understand it. We are now discussing the issue again on Report and I find that I understand it no better.
We have to be sensible about this. We are changing the voting systems all over the place. In the old days we had first-past-the-post and everyone knew where they were. If you got more votes than someone else, you won. Then we talked about PR. That is completely different. Everyone says that it is a system; it is not. It is an umbrella for about 12 different systems, each one of which has a different answer. Scotland apparently has a system of first-past-the-post plus PR. If anyone understands how that works, they are lucky. Then we had the European Parliament elections which were also different.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, provides that we vote and then someone multiplies it by 2.7. If anyone understands how that works, why it works, or the purpose of it, they are better people than I am. I do not understand it. We keep talking about what the people of the country will think about the Bill. When they hear that certain noble Lords can go into the Lobbies and have their votes multiplied by 2.7, they will think that we have all gone barking mad—and I think that we shall have done.
Lord Desai: My Lords, there have always been two reasons for the present Bill. One is a matter of principle: that the Labour Party has been committed for 100 years to abolish the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote. There is no doubt that those hereditary Peers are nice people. fine people, wise and useful. It is not a criticism of their character, contribution, nobility or anything else. If they return to this Chamber as life Peers, they will be perfectly welcome. But the principle of sitting in a legislative Chamber in an age of democracy on the ground of being the eldest son of a Peer is not acceptable. That is the simple point.
However, if having agreed on that principle, and being committed to it in the manifesto we then said, "We are going to do this, but it may take 50 years", the public would be somewhat upset. My noble friend Lord Whitty repeated a Statement on the London Underground. He could easily have said, "My Lords, it is in a terrible state. There are many old trains, but we shall not bring in new trains until the last train currently in existence is finally defunct". If we are going to change, let us change soon—now.
My noble friend does not like speed, efficiency or efficacy. He is sentimentally attached to these nice people. as I am, and he wants to delay the matter. I believe that that would deny fundamentally the principle of this legislation.
190
I have little difficulty about numbers. We could have a different number every day. We could come in in the morning and decide the appropriate number. But it would be completely wrong always to ensure that the Government had their way. That is against the spirit of this Chamber. I oppose the provision on that ground alone. I do not think that one should ever give the Government a guarantee that their legislation will go through. For that reason, let us say that the Government and the chief opposition party will not vote. That will meet my noble friend's proposal. Only the Cross-Benchers, the Liberal Democrats and the Bishops would vote. The position is absurd.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in supporting the amendment, I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, that part of the trouble with the interim House is that no one knows how long it will last. One of the advantages of the amendment is that it would last for a long time—indeed, longer than the five years which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has admitted the interim House might last.
When the noble Baroness asks how long the second stage will last, the precise answer is that no one knows. She worries about 2.7 votes being awarded to each Mumber of her own side, in case one noble Lord on the Benches opposite should be courageous enough to vote against his own side. I would say that that is a thoroughly good thing. If someone on the Benches opposite has the conviction and courage to vote against whatever the party policy of the day may be, I believe that it richly deserves a value of 2.7 votes. I see nothing wrong with that.
I am sorry to keep picking on the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, but she also says—and it is a theme which is running too widely through your Lordships' debate—that the overwhelming acceptance of the Weatherill amendment means that nothing can be done about it. At least 18 of us who had tabled amendments on this "unmarshalled" list of amendments to Weatherill were assured that if we withdrew them and Weatherill were accepted, that would be the opportunity to debate Weatherill. That was the point of doing it.
We are now told that as Weatherill has been overwhelmingly supported for all kinds of reasons which have nothing to do with the amendment, we cannot amend it. That is quite unacceptable. I ask the Minister to say that what the Government dislike in the powers of the hereditary peerage is the power to legislate. I suggest to the Minister that the power to legislate is contained almost entirely in the power to vote. That is why this amendment is so clean. It puts straight the Conservative preponderance in your Lordships' House. It puts the power to vote where it belongs, equally distributed among the political parties. As my noble friend Lord Geddes said, it leaves the Cross-Benchers with the final say in most deliberations of your Lordships' House, which is exactly where it ought to be. As I said previously, if your Lordships' House could be entirely and genuinely Cross Bench, that would be very much in the interests of the nation. I support the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, only I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has got his amendment exactly right. However, we ought to encourage him in his work. It is meritorious, logical, effective and compassionate—all of which are good things. The noble Lord has been attacked on the grounds that what he is doing is against the principle; that is, the principle of the total removal of hereditary Peers from this House. He has been attacked on the grounds that it is not consistent with the manifesto and that it is delaying the abolition of the hereditary peerage beyond the effect of the immediate Bill. That principle, that consistency and that immediacy have all been breached with the sanction of the Government by the Weatherill amendment. Therefore, it seems to me that those arguments necessarily fall.
It has been suggested that the system is too difficult to understand—surprisingly, by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, among others. I do not doubt that in his youth my noble friend played Monopoly. If he casts his mind back he will remember that there is a great difference between the weighting of Park Lane and Fenchurch Street. What has happened is that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, is suggesting that the Government Benches should have hotels on Park Lane and that we would be lucky to have Fenchurch Street and the waterworks.
As regards the difficulty that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, suggested the Clerks would have, the Clerks can read lists as well as we can and better—I suggest that they have had more practice—and the names of those voting would be printed in the appropriate blocks with the appropriate figure above. Therefore, there would be no difficulty with the arithmetic.
All that is academic in the present political situation. The homework which the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has to do is not merely related to redrafting his amendment but the opinions of his noble friends in this House and crucially his right honourable and honourable friends in another place. There is futility in accepting an amendment that is doomed to failure in place of one which is already agreed. That is the decision that your Lordships would be making. I am interested to see even a tumbrelist on the Back Benches opposite nodding his head in agreement.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, put forward the amendment in the expectation, or at any rate the hope, that it would achieve consensus. Well, hope springs eternal in the breasts of Back-Benchers and Cross-Benchers, but whether it has survived the speeches from his side of the House I very much doubt. If it has, it is a very stout breast indeed, as we are prepared to concede.
One of the values of the amendment is that the contention between the noble Lord and those who have intervened from his side have concentrated on the manifesto. That is valuable because that difference of opinion throws light both on this Bill and on the ultimate stage. A few years ago in the 1970s, there was much
192
talk of a manifesto mandate, which of course was nonsense. It was treating a manifesto as though it had been a series of questions put in a referendum. It was no such thing. It did not survive at that time critical scrutiny, both parliamentary and legal.
Recently one has heard instead of a manifesto commitment. That phrase is often used to describe what is really meant; a manifesto mandate. Indeed, so experienced a constitutional lawyer as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, when he first intervened on the Bill, used the expression "manifesto commitment", but then slipped easily into a "manifest mandate". We have heard that over and over again. We heard it in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
The manifesto commitment does not bind Parliament. So long as there is parliamentary government, Parliament must counterbalance the executive. The executive may be bound by its commitment, but Parliament is not and cannot be if it is to do its job. But it will be said, and rightly, that Members of another place are bound by a manifesto commitment because in standing for election on a manifesto they have undertaken a personal commitment. That means that the Government will always get their way in the another place, provided that they can find authority in the manifesto. However, that merely accentuates the importance of your Lordships' House not being bound, as we are not bound, by any manifesto commitment. We are not bound ourselves, nor bound to concede it. Therefore, it seems to me that the argument of the manifesto commitment urges strongly the independence of your Lordships' House, even if it means that there should be a Conservative majority in your Lordships' House to counterbalance the Labour majority in the other place.
I desire to make only one other comment. The only common ground that I could discern between the noble Lord and his critics on his side is that all seem to be committed to the idea that the hereditary system of legislation cannot be justified. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for what he said earlier, I cannot accept that. It seems to me to be thoroughly sensible to pick from a genetic pool people who are not only born into that pool but who are brought up in an ambience of political culture. So, it is small wonder that over the years and, indeed, up to today, your Lordships' House has shown political wisdom and understanding.
The drawback, of course, is that that is not understood. There is an almost universal contempt just now for the hereditary principle; it is said that in a legislature it cannot be accepted. That means that your Lordships cannot exercise full power and conviction.
Nevertheless, I for one cannot accept a doctrine that is vindicated by the modern science of genetics and has a most distinguished philosophical background. If in no other respect your Lordships are platonic in that way. We should not be ashamed to stand for the hereditary principle and consider that it is valuable to counterbalance the democratic principle in the other place. All that one needs to say is that ultimately we are all democrats simply because those who are entrusted with power cannot be trusted not to abuse it. Therefore,

193
the Government are, in my respectful submission, quite right to say in their submission to the Royal Commission that the House of Commons must, in the end, prevail. But, that does not mean at all that the hereditary principle and your Lordships' place in this House cannot be justified. In my respectful submission, it can.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am tempted to speak in support of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, particularly about the mandate; but I wish to offer my general support to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux. It is in our knowledge that comparatively few hereditary Peers sit on the Labour Benches. The result is that a Labour government can get their business through this House only by political conventions which have arisen over the years to the extent that Labour only governs by leave of these Benches.
This arrangement works well enough, and has worked well enough in the past. Nothing in the debates on the Bill to date leads me to think that the interim House will work more fairly, efficiently or with greater legitimacy than the present House. Nevertheless, the weighted voting provision proposed by the noble Lord is intended to redress the balance and to give to a Labour government the same power in this House as a Conservative government have here when there is a Conservative government in the other place.
Unlike my noble friend Lord Onslow, whose long record as a Jacobin is well recorded, I am not, and do not profess to be, a reformer. Nevertheless, I accept the force of the argument that something must be done about the in-built political imbalance here. Because the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, achieve this, I am prepared to accept them. I would vote "Content" if he sought to divide the House on the matter.
However, the noble Lord should be aware, as I am sure he is, that these Benches are deeply divided on the basic principles behind his amendments. To realise this your Lordships have only to consider the comments of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (who is not in his place today) on the fourth day of Committee after the division on the Weatherill amendment. He spoke in answer to an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rowallan which would have excepted from Clause 1 those hereditary Peers who are regular attenders. I would remind the House that the words of my noble friend were:
"the amendment that your Lordships have just passed will take on board, so to speak, almost all the hardest working Peers … So I must say to him that, while I understand his point and appreciate the hard work that many hereditaries have done"—
to that I say, "thank you very much"—
"I think that your Lordships' House has, so to speak, 'done its business' this very words] by the hereditaries in passing the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill".—[Official Report. 11/5/99; col. 1142.]
It may be said that the cuckoo hatched in 1958 has well and truly landed in your Lordships' nest, at least in the form of my noble friend's remarks on that occasion.
194
I suspect, therefore, that in seeking to deal fairly with all and not just some hereditary Peers, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, may be trying to achieve just a little too much; but his effort and goodwill deserve much support and I offer him mine.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches, agree so completely with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, that l want to add literally just two sentences.
The first is to ask the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, whether, when he was thinking up his ingenious idea for weighted voting, he was inspired by the famous slogan from Animal Farm that all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. The other sentence is to endorse, as strongly as I can, the plea from the noble Baroness that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, should tonight either trove his amendment or withdraw it permanently so that we do not have to go through this argument again at Third Reading.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, has returned to the question of his plan to introduce a system of voting which would allow hereditary Peers to stay in the House. He has done so with great courage and his amendment has much charm.
As I understand it, his collection of amendments sets out to achieve three things. Amendment No. 9 would keep in your Lordships' House, for life, all those hereditary Peers who were Members on the day that the Bill becomes law. Amendment No. 58 would bring in a weighted voting system; the weight of votes eligible to be cast for parties supporting the Government will be more than the votes eligible to be cast for the Official Opposition. Amendment No. 62 would establish a commission to report on how such a voting system might work.
To me, this seems a logical and coherent package; so logical that I suspect it has absolutely no chance whatever of being accepted by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, is being loyal to your Lordships' House and to its traditions by introducing this amendment. The Bill does so much damage to your Lordships' House. For that he should be praised, not criticised.
In Committee, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, the noble and learned Lord Falconer said, on 20th April 1999 at cols. 1149 and 1150 of Hansard, that no one could understand a weighted voting system such as he proposed. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is unfamiliar with the range of voting systems his party has introduced over the past 18 months.
Is it not odd for a government who have brought in so many new, experimental and differing voting systems, such as those in the European elections, the elections for Wales and Scotland, and indeed in the elections for London, to stop at a weighted voting system in your Lordships' House?

195
As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, is not insisting on a specific proposal such as the one deplored by the noble and learned lord, Lord Falconer. Although he has put his ideas in the Library to show that his proposal would not be particularly complex, he has also asked for the creation of a commission to advise your Lordships' House on how his system might work.
The approach of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux— that the hereditary peerage be phased out, not forced out, while the sting of numbers is drawn by a revised voting system—goes with the grain of natural justice and, dare I say it, unfashionable though it now is in many quarters, fair play.
I do see that there are some practical difficulties with the proposal. These are not insurmountable; and his plans would prevent the upheaval and disruption to the work of your Lordships' House that the Bill will undoubtedly provoke. It may be that a specific voting system cannot be linked to the Bill at this stage; but, as your Lordships are fully aware, we are already, at the Government's insistence, putting great weight on standing orders. We have a paper on the Weatherill proposal for the Procedure Committee. Could we not invite the Clerks to look at the potential for progress on the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Randall?
Alternatively, the noble Lord's proposal of a commission would give us time to reach a consensus on the voting system. Is it too much to ask noble and noble and learned Lords on the Government Benches to engage in talks, in which we would be very happy to join, on the ideas of Lord Randall? We could give evidence constructively to a commission such as that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Would the Government agree to do the same?
At the same time, in its present form we could not support the amendment at this stage if moved before further talks, and we would not favour exchanging the certain provision in the Weatherill amendment for this, as yet unagreed, proposal. But, no doubt, if the Government were ever to withdraw the Weatherill amendment for one reason or another, this is one of the many routes which your Lordships' House might feel could be more fully explored.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, during this evening I have to reply to a number of differently grouped sets of amendments. It may be helpful if I indicate to your Lordships the way I am intending to proceed, which is to be guided firmly by what is set out in the Companion, namely, that arguments fully deployed in Committee should not be repeated at length on report. That is a matter which I thought it might be helpful to indicate.
Certainly there have been some remarkable contributions to this debate. Your Lordships have claimed knowledge of what people think in the public houses throughout the land. Evidently your Lordships go to different public houses than I do. Perhaps it is the difference between the saloon bar and the public bar.
196
I find it quite extraordinary that it could be suggested that peasant caps are going to be thrown into the air on realisation that 2.7 votes will adhere and inure to particular Members of your Lordships' House. Or, if I pop into the saloon bar in the Salutation Arms in Nantgaredig and point out to them that they are really not quite full members of the genetic pool, that they are not themselves the happy blessed recipients of what they pronounce as "ambience" but what is in your Lordships' House correctly called the political ambience, I would be very promptly in receipt of a physical as well as a metaphorical thick ear.
Some of the phrases used tonight demonstrate how absolutely right we all were to get started urgently on reform of your Lordships' House. I quote two phrases almost at random: one is, "our Party's"—that is, the Conservative Party's—"natural majority". Another is, "The Government only govern by leave of these Benches". The temptation to sit down now is almost overwhelming. I have to tell your Lordships, because it was not entirely plain to me until the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, came to his last sentence, "but we shall feel unable to support it", that it seemed to me that he was in fact about to invite his colleagues on his Benches to come to a conclusion which I have to say is absolutely smack counter to the Weatherill proposals.
Your Lordships, as always, must come to your independent conclusions. But, in honour to the House, we have no doubt at all that if these amendments were passed they would be wholly opposite to the Weatherill compromise.
They split conveniently into two categories, as has rightly been indicated by the noble Lord who moved them. First, the continuation of the hereditary principle until the last hereditary Peer is dead. On our actuarial calculations, which in the nature of things must be speculative, and indeed may be unduly pessimistic, the last hereditary Peer is probably likely to die in 2068—I am not feeling too well myself. Contrary to the recent historical tour of the Labour Party by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and why it is against the hereditary principle, I do not read the Labour Party's objection to the hereditary principle as having been entirely temporarily coincident with the row about the poll tax. It would mean that about 200 years after serious disquiet had been raised about the continuation of the hereditary principle we should all be there—I beg your Lordships' pardon: one of us would be there on his deathbed in about 2068.
The weighting arrangements, and I am bound to say as so often in these matters that I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, are opaque to the point of not being understandable. They are a device to bring about another objective which is fundamentally not what the Government are minded to do. That does not dispose of the argument. It simply restates our absolute determination that the compromise is to have a life of a relatively short period in the context of the 200 years that I earlier mentioned; that is what we are adamant about.
I do not think it is courteous to your Lordships to reiterate any further the arguments that have been already deployed either by myself, the noble and learned

197
Lords the Lord Chancellor and Lord Falconer or the Leader of the House. Our position is quite plain. We cannot find these amendments or anything like them acceptable.
Lord Randall of St Budeaux: My Lords, first I refer to the Front Bench's comments before I go into the comments made by other Members of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for the Front Bench on the Conservative side, said that although he found it attractive in many ways he felt that there would have to be discussions on any proposals and that there could not be any support before further talks.
We ought to make it absolutely clear that the Government have taken a position, the Front Benches on both sides have got an agreement and there is a deal. We all need to recognise that. When those deals have been made there is a degree of intransigence and therefore Members of the Front Bench particularly have to see the thing through by hook or by crook. We understand that. We understand what the position is. Any move from the current deal is always quite hard to make. Nevertheless, I believe that if something is flawed it is my duty as a Back-Bencher to point it out.
My very good and noble friend Lord Williams on the Front Bench mentioned the continuation of hereditaries; in proportional terms the very small number who could be around for some time. What he said is absolutely true, but, as I mentioned earlier, when it comes to the interest of the House, I cannot see any strategic significance for rooting out a very small number of people because they are hereditary. The question of not being able to understand the weighting has come up a few times. I am beginning to feel that just multiplying numbers together is not that difficult.
But let me go back to the beginning. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and the noble Lord, Lord. Northbrook, for their kind comments. My noble friend Lady Gould made some interesting points in relation to the manifesto. I sought legal advice on the whole question of the right to sit and vote being ended. That legal advice was to the effect that the whole matter is very open. The initiation of the termination of membership of the House of Lords would be perfectly legitimate within the context of the manifesto. My noble friend also made strong comments in regard to a number of hereditaries remaining here. I cannot see the strategic significance of that.
In relation to the weighted voting and the misunderstandings that arose in that regard, my noble friend quoted out-of-date figures that were considered earlier on. Also, she implied that there may be covert Members of this House who might wish to move to the other side in order to obtain 2.7 votes. I am not sure about that. The other point made by my noble friend Lady Gould concerned the recording and the Clerks. Again, this is extremely detailed stuff but perhaps I should go through it.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, in that case I shall go through it. All one has is the form outside
198
and where one is a member of the Labour Party, we move it over by about 1.5 centimetres. All that happens is that the names are ticked off in the usual way; we add up the bottom row and then look up a table which converts 322 to 256. It is as simple as that and takes around four or five seconds. So there would be no change in procedure for Peers. We would not need computers or anything. It is extremely simple to add up the figures by just shuffling around the design of the forms for both Lobbies.
My noble friend asked some interesting questions in relation to the commission. They will need answering. I did not think it would be necessary at this stage to say who sits and what the terms of reference would be. But it would be for the purposes of validation only and they would probably complete their work in around half a day. Nevertheless my noble friend made some good suggestions and I shall make sure that they are dealt with.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, made some good suggestions in terms of the interpretation of Clause 58. Again, I shall look at that and take advice. I did not understand the point being made by my noble friend Lord Desai. Again, I believe his concern was that he wanted to see hereditaries go in one big bang. I cannot see the justification for that. If one does a simple analysis of it, then there could be significant losses of people who are competent. I did not distinguish between hereditary and life Peers.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Elton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for their comments. The point they were making was that the Front Benchers on this side have a job to do; they have to deliver Weatherill come what may, because of the agreement between the two Front Benches and the deal that was made. The probability that I will get anything through with that weight against me is highly unlikely. On the other hand, I am going to keep going until the very end, in case the Weatherill amendment is wiped out for some reason. That will leave an option open. I hope the Government will look at it and consider discussing the matter further with the other side with a view to providing more than one option, so that the House can choose. This is an opportunity, and to shut it down and say, "We are not going to have any further discussion on alternative options' would be short-sighted. My advice would be at least to give this approach fair consideration for the benefit of this House, and also for the benefit of this Government.
The Deputy Speaker (The Viscount of Oxfuird): My Lords, the Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content''.
Noble Lords: Not-Content.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the "Not-Contents" have it.
Amendment negatived.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that we reconvene not before 8.35 p.m?
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999
7.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order before us today authorises expenditure of £4,282 million for Northern Ireland departments in the current financial year. That is in addition to the sum of £3,120 million voted on account in March and brings total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departments to £7,402 million.
We are providing for substantially increased spending in key priority areas in line with our manifesto pledges. The two major beneficiaries are health and education with additions of £616 million and £588 million respectively over the three-year period beginning this year. Other key areas with spending increases include the New Deal for the unemployed, water and sewerage and transport infrastructure.
As noble Lords may recall, Parliament voted to approve sums on account for 1999–2000 to meet the expenditure needs of Northern Ireland departments as part of the normal Northern Ireland appropriation procedures which took place in February and March 1999. The appropriation order itself was then made at the March Privy Council. We had hoped that devolution would have taken place in March or April of this year and the Assembly would therefore complete the appropriation of the 1999–2000 main estimates. However, with the delay in devolution it now seems unlikely that the Assembly will be able to pass an appropriation Bill before the Summer Recess, even if agreement on the timing of full devolution is reached quickly. We have therefore decided that it would be appropriate to seek approval for the main estimates for 1999–2000 from Parliament. This will safeguard the continuity of key public services including the health service, social security, education, economic development, agriculture, environment and so forth. If appropriation was left until after the Assembly's summer recess, there is a risk that some of these services could begin to run out of money. After devolution, the Assembly will of course be responsible for approving all further appropriations for devolved services, including any supplementary estimates for 1999–2000 based on the recommendations of the Executive Committee.
This order covers the services of the Northern Ireland departments which, despite the ongoing political difficulties, we hope will shortly become the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive and
200
Assembly. I remind your Lordships that the order does not cover the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office on law and order services. As a Whitehall department, the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office are dealt with separately. However, until powers are devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, the public expenditure decisions underlying the estimates for both the Northern Ireland departments and the Northern Ireland Office will continue to form part of the Northern Ireland block allocation. As such the Secretary of State has flexibility to reallocate resources within the block in light of emerging pressures and easements. After devolution the Secretary of State's flexibility will only cover the expenditure of the Northern Ireland Office. The Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly will then have flexibility to reallocate resources among the devolved services.
I am sure your Lordships will join with me in recognising the possibilities for truly momentous change flowing from the establishment of the Assembly and will share with me in the desire to do everything possible to ensure its success. Indeed, given the present difficult circumstances in the Province, I am sure your Lordships will agree that all those who can bring influence to bear in resolving the present situation, should be encouraged to do so.
Following the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review, an estimate of some £14 million was set for the Assembly for 1999–2000. However, it is accepted that following devolution additional provision will need to be made for the costs of the Assembly. My right honourable friend, the Minister of State, Paul Murphy, is discussing this matter with the Assembly Commission. He will be in a position to provide more information when he is introducing the draft appropriation order in another place.
I know that your Lordships continue to take a close interest in the prospects for economic development in Northern Ireland and I should therefore like to say a few words about the local economic situation before turning to the contents of the estimates. The latest available official statistics show that the Northern Ireland economy remains in good health in almost every area. The main economic indicators have, once again, shown very positive results for the Province.
The output of manufacturing and production industries continues to rise at a rate well above that achieved nationally. Over the past four years, Northern Ireland's manufacturing sector has increased its output by almost 12 per cent compared with growth of just 0.5 per cent achieved nationally. There has also been a significant improvement in the Province's gross domestic product relative to the United Kingdom, with GDP per head rising from 76.9 per cent of the national average in 1990 to 80.4 per cent by 1997.
At December 1998 the number of employee jobs stood at 609,480—the highest figure on record. This is reflected in the International Labour Organisation's unemployment rate of 7.2 per cent for the period January to March 1999. This means that unemployment in Northern Ireland is now lower than five other UK

201
Government regions (Scotland, Wales, Merseyside, London and the North-East) and a significant 2.4 per cent below the EU average of 9.6 per cent, with major economies such as France, Germany and Italy recording unemployment rates of 11.4 per cent, 9 per cent and 12 per cent respectively. In addition, falls in the numbers of both long-term and youth unemployment are particularly encouraging.
Also 1998–99 has been a good year for investment in the Province. During 1998–99, 49 IDB-supported projects have been announced by companies already established in Northern Ireland, promoting 2,777 new jobs while safeguarding a further 2,817 existing jobs. Over the same period, 21 IDB-backed inward investment projects have been announced, promoting 2,657 new jobs.
Of course, the difficulties surrounding Drumcree last July and the July before have not helped because they possibly deter inward investors and everybody must hope that an accommodation will be reached there before the beginning of the marching season next month.
All of this clearly demonstrates the impressive achievements of the Northern Ireland economy which, coupled with the potential for achieving political stability, provides Northern Ireland with an opportunity for a brighter economic future.
If, as we all hope, devolution of power to local representatives takes place in the very near future, the six main Northern Ireland departments will undergo significant restructuring to form a new 10 department structure, along with the office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. As this will involve the transfer of many services between departments, as an aid to presentation the 1999–2000 main estimates votes have been numbered from one to 26, with the existing department names removed from the vote. I now turn to the main items of expenditure covered by the order as detailed in the estimates booklet. I will refer to votes in line with the revised vote numbering. Figures are generally rounded to the nearest million pounds and I shall be as brief as possible to allow maximum time for debate or questions. I shall start with the Department of Agriculture. In Vote 1, net provision of £17 million is to fund EU and national agricultural support measures.
In Vote 2, £153 million is for ongoing regional services and support measures. This includes £70 million for the development of the agriculture and agricultural products industries and for scientific and veterinary services. Some £20 million is for farm support, enhancement of the countryside, and fisheries and forestry services. Some £18 million is for central administration, including information technology and specialist accommodation services, and £8 million is for the rural development programme. Then £18 million is for the Rivers Agency and £10 million is in respect of processing and marketing, fishing projects and structural funds which are wholly funded by the European Union. This vote also contains provision of £9 million in respect of the European Union Peace and Reconciliation Programme, which incorporates agriculture, rural and water-based projects.
I now turn to the three votes for the Department of Economic Development, where in Vote 3 £153 million is for the Industrial Development Board. The Belfast Agreement, with the prospect of greater political stability, provides a unique opportunity for attracting new investment to Northern Ireland. This major commitment of resources will enable IDB to offer very competitive packages of assistance to both new and existing firms and will build on the IDB's excellent performance in 1988–99.
In Vote 4, £145 million is required. This includes £15 million for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to assist the development of tourism in Northern Ireland. Again the prospect of peace opens up opportunities for promoting Northern Ireland as a tourist destination. In 1998, 1.47 million visitors came to Northern Ireland, an increase of 4 per cent on the previous year. It is anticipated that in 1999, visitor numbers will increase again by 4 per cent to 1.53 million. This aptly demonstrates the potential that exists for attracting tourists and increasing the contribution the tourist industry can make to the economy. At present spending by holiday visitors and domestic holidaymakers accounts for 2 per cent of Northern Ireland's GDP, sustaining in the region of 14,750 jobs. If this could be increased to the levels attained in the Republic of Ireland, currently around 5 per cent., there is the potential to create a further 20,000 jobs.
In Vote 5, £265 million is sought for the Training and Employment Agency and £72 million under the Government's welfare to work initiative will provide 25,000 places in a range of employment and training measures mainly within the New Deals for 18 to 24 year-olds and long-term unemployed. This is a significant increase from some 15,000 places in 1998–99. Employers in Northern Ireland have reacted enthusiastically to the New Deal and to date almost 3,000 have signed agreements to deliver the employment option. Some £61 million is to fund 11,500 training places under the Jobskills Training Programme. A total of £22 million is for other training programmes which will provide some 3,300 places for long-term unemployed adults in projects of community benefit. A further £17 million is to assist companies to improve their competitiveness by developing the skills of their workforce.
Turning to the Department of the Environment which has five votes numbered 7 to 11, Vote 7 seeks £204 million for roads, transports and ports. This includes £147 million for the development and operation, as well as the maintenance of Northern Ireland's public roads system. Some £20 million is for road passenger services and almost £13 million for continued support of railway services.
Vote 8 relates to housing, where some £266 million will be provided, mainly to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the voluntary housing movement. When net borrowing and the Housing Executive's rental income and capital receipts from house sales are taken into account, the total resources available for housing will be approximately

203
£605 million. Gross resources for the voluntary housing sector, taking into account some £40 million of private funding, will be around £110 million.
In Vote 9, gross expenditure of £209 million is estimated on the provision of water and sewerage services, of which £90 million is for capital expenditure and £115 million for operational and maintenance purposes, including administration costs. That vote reflects also a recent technical change in presentation. Previously that vote was shown net of a contribution from the regional rate. Now, however, those receipts are not being included and the net overall amount is therefore that much higher.
That technical change will have no effect on the level of activity in water services. We are providing an additional £84 million for water and sewerage over the next three years. That substantial additional provision is needed to put right many years of under-funding in that vital area. We are fully committed to addressing the requirements arising from EU directives and to provide the highest standards in public health.
In Vote 10, £222 million is being sought for environmental and other services provided by a number of agencies, including the Environment and Heritage Service, the Planning Service, the Construction Service and the Rate Collection Agency. Moreover, £30 million will be targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need through various urban regeneration measures and £31 million will be made available under the EU Peace and Reconciliation Programme, of which £23 million will be funded from EU receipts.
The estimates for the Department of Education seek a net total £1,536 million in Vote 12, an increase of 6 per cent on last year's provision. That includes £882 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards, of which £1 million is provided under the Government's New Deal. That comprises £818 million for schools and £64 million for libraries, youth administration and other services.
Vote 12 also provides £48 million for boards' capital projects; £65 million for capital projects in voluntary and grant-maintained integrated schools; and £163 million for recurrent expenditure in voluntary and grant-maintained integrated schools. That amount includes £28 million recurrent expenditure for grant-maintained integrated schools, an increase of £5 million over 1998–99. The provision for boards' and other schools' capital includes some £6 million under the Government's New Deal.
Also in Vote 12, £110 million has been provided for colleges of further education, £125 million for local universities and £128 million for student support, including grants and student loans. The vote also covers expenditure on a range of youth, sport, community and cultural activities, including £17 million for arts and museums, £5 million for the Odyssey Millennium Landmark Project and £4 million for community relations. Some £13 million has also been made available under the EU Peace and Reconciliation Programme.
The next set of six votes relates to the Department of Health and Social Services where £1,666 million is sought in Vote 14 for expenditure on hospitals, community health and personal social services, health and social services trusts, family health services and certain other services.
In Vote 16, £33 million is sought for expenditure on grants to voluntary bodies, training, bursaries and further education and certain other services.
In Vote 17, £146 million is sought to meet the department's administration and other miscellaneous costs. That includes £96 million for the Social Security Agency which also takes into account £3 million in respect of administering the Welfare to Work initiatives. Some £8 million is for the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency; £4 million for the Health Estates Agency and £37 million for the core department.
In Vote 18, £1,811 million is sought for social security benefit expenditure administered by the Social Security Agency. That represents an increase of 7.3 per cent compared with forecast outturn for last year. It covers not only the general uprating of benefits from April 1999 but also an increasing number of beneficiaries.
In Vote 19, £373 million is sought to cover expenditure on the independent living funds, motability, housing benefits and the Social Fund, including substantially increased provision for winter fuel payments and payments into the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund.
Finally, I turn to the new Northern Ireland Assembly vote where, as I have already advised, £14 million is sought to cover the initial costs of the Assembly in this financial year.
I hope that that short summary of the main components of the estimates is helpful. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th June be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Luke: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the order and accept the need for it. I also welcome in particular his announcement of the discussions taking place concerning the funding of the Assembly. The Minister will no doubt be taking action in due course and we look forward to responding more fully at that time.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I apologise for being a couple of minutes late for the Minister's opening remarks. I was taken by surprise because the amendment which seemed to be debated for such a long time did not end in a vote. I have not contributed to the debate on Lords reform and that is probably why I made such a mistake.
The Minister will not be surprised that we welcome the extremely positive note which was struck in relation to the extra money provided in the order for education; namely, a further 6 per cent. I welcome too the positive news as regards the employment statistics which will go a long way towards increasing the future prosperity of Northern Ireland.

205
I have only one question on the order. It relates to the cost of the Assembly. The Minister stated that his honourable friend in another place will be dealing with that issue. However, we raised that matter on the last Appropriation Order because there seemed to be some difference between the Assembly's figure of £ million for its running costs and the £14 million which was put aside by the Government. The monthly expenditure of the shadow Assembly is running at £1.2 million. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the full Assembly could survive on a mere £14 million because that is what is roughly being spent at present. That has been highlighted also because the Scottish Parliament has produced very different figures for its running costs.
The Minister said that an accommodation is to be reached. It was envisaged, but unfortunately has not come to pass, that the Assembly would be up and running by June. Had that been so, there would have been some difficulty in relation to working within those figures. However, the Minister assured us that the situation is under control and is in hand. Therefore, I support the order.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I suppose that the drafting of the order in its present form is a sign of the times. Although the votes are numbered, they do not appear at first sight to relate to the Northern Ireland departments as we know them. Judging from the Minister's introduction, perhaps we may assume that that is because of the restructuring of the departments to provide justification for the appointment of up to a dozen Ministers. That implies that they will not work as hard as the noble Lord and his colleagues have done. They have had a much heavier load.
One disadvantage of the present layout is that although the votes cover a multitude of matters, apart from the welcome tally which the Minister gave of the amounts expended on each of the items, all we have in printed form is a collection of sentences. However, I do not complain because I expect that this is a one-off.
However, in this short debate, I wish to concentrate on only one department; namely, the Department of Finance and Personnel. Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanatory letter of 3rd June. It is understandable that there is a problem caused by the fact that devolution has been delayed, and I accept entirely what the Minister said in that regard. Although the allocations to the Northern Ireland departments appear to follow the normal course, based, as they are, on the Northern Ireland main estimates, the uncertainty exists in relation to the new Northern Ireland Assembly. That has led to difficulty with regard to the provision of expenses of the Assembly for 1999–2000.
Hitherto, the estimates included a very modest vote to, for example, the Clerk of the Assembly. That has gone on for a quarter of a century, irrespective of the fact that no assembly existed, so at least someone is going to be made an honest man from now on as a result of the changes. But now there is a possibility of an assembly in that it may come into being—and I put it no higher than that—and the Department of Finance and
206
Personnel has budgeted for a sum of £14.3 million for the year 1999–2000—based, I suppose, on the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review.
The first difficulty is that the £14.3 million was extrapolated from 1998–99 shadow Budget with an uplift of round about 1.53 per cent, again, probably in line with Treasury figures for the UK. I do not complain about that modest percentage increase, but it brings me to a second problem which has nothing to do with the increased expenditure but everything to do with taking no account of the increases which were implicit in, and made inevitable by, the legislation in your Lordships' House which established the Assembly. That inevitable expenditure falls under what might be termed "under-estimated expenditure".
Under-estimates in the DFP figures account for most of the discrepancies between its estimates and those of the Assembly Commission and amount to around £17 million, of which the following are the most significant: secretarial staff salaries for 400 staff, £5.4 million; printing, publishing, and the rest of it, £3.9 million; committee costs, including travelling, which has not yet been estimated; subsistence, specialist advisers and Parliamentary Association duties, £2.4 million; Members' allowances, including office costs allowance, party allowance, temporary secretarial allowance, £1.2 million; Members' travel and subsistence, including staff and family concessionary travel, £1.4 million; IT costs—I am not quite sure what that is—£1.1 million; Members' salaries, of which -we would have some knowledge, come to £700,00 million; Library acquisitions and purchases of publications amount to £300,000, and stationery costs amount to £200,000. That makes a total of £16.6 million.
I turn now to the third discrepancy and cause for concern, which is the entire absence of provision under different headings. While the under-estimation to which I have just referred amounts to some £17 million—that is, the discrepancy between the DFP and the Assembly projections—the remaining £5.5 million is mainly attributable to the following expenditure areas, which, for some extraordinary reason, have been unforeseen by the DFP. They include Members' pensions at £1,350,000 and Parliament building running costs, including heat, light, rates, rental and outbuildings. I should have thought that someone would have had the foresight to come to the conclusion that such bills had to be paid. In total, they come to £780,000.
Then there is another curious area; namely, works to Parliament buildings (including maintenance, grounds maintenance, repairs, improvements, architects, and so on) which amount to £750,000. There is also catering (together with cleaning) which comes to over half a million pounds; furniture which amounts to half a million pounds and then another curious one—miscellaneous Westminster-style provision for Members (including insurance, winding-up allowance, resettlement grants, ill-health, and retirement grants)—which amounts to a quarter of a million pounds. That is followed by some relatively more modest publicity and educational material, specifying who is going to be

207
educated, which amounts to £100,000. There is also the cost of legal counsel at £100,000 and childcare at £25,000. All that makes a total of £4.4 million.
As I said, these are expenditure areas which are apparently unforeseen by the Department of Finance and Personnel. Taken together, the discrepancies between the DFP and the Assembly estimates for the year 1999–2000 of some £22.6 million can be accounted for as follows, under three brief headings. The department's estimate is £14.3 million. Under-estimates stand at £17 million and lack of provision for any allocation stands at £4.4 million, making a total of £35.7 million—nearly £36 million.
I have not included the considerable amounts which will surface as a result of decisions already taken in principle by the Northern Ireland Office and by the Assembly itself: additional recommendations in regard to Members and office holders; additional salaries of office holders who are designated; sound and vision contracts—greatly inflated by decision of the Assembly, not of the Government, to use English and Irish languages thereby doubling Hansard costs compared to those in Westminster—and proposed charges by the Department of Finance and Personnel; for example, charging a fee to the Assembly for recruitment, which is not as yet specified. There we have a whole range of expenditure actually approved, or committed, in addition to the £36 million that I have already mentioned.
The Minister was very frank and honest when he explained that the order before us is something of a holding operation—we can quite understand that—which does not breach the Comprehensive Spending Review but is in line with all the other main estimates. I do not intend to press the noble Lord for a definitive response this evening to these complicated matters. But I wonder whether it might be possible for the Minister to consult with his ministerial colleague Mr Murphy, who is in charge of the Department of Finance and who will be submitting this order to the other place next week. Perhaps the two Ministers could seek to reduce the gap between £14 million and £36 million before the other place debates this unsatisfactory situation next week.
In his opening speech the Minister gave a hint that the Government might be giving some thought to that very wide financial gap. I am not demanding that the gap be closed in the short period of one week in view of the fact that some items cannot easily be quantified. But is it unreasonable to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and his ministerial colleague Mr Murphy might compare the estimates of the department—which is Treasury linked—with the estimates of the Northern Ireland Assembly commissioners and, it is to be hoped, reach an agreement, albeit a modest one, on a more realistic presentation before next Monday?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I rise reluctantly to explain some of the deplorable consequences of the current change from ACE (Action for Community Employment) to "New Deal", being the somewhat Rooseveltian term borrowed by this Government for their latest proposals. As some of your Lordships may
208
know, I have the honour to be president of NIACRO. This voluntary organisation, together with Exturn, has for many years been providing training workshops for ex-offenders and others at risk of falling into crime. These workshops have often produced wooden play equipment, which is used by play groups and infant classes throughout Northern Ireland.
Over the years, most of our clients have been referred by the Probation Board. The work and instruction in the workshops have been specially designed for people who have not done well at school and who do not have high level manual skills. Dedicated teams of managers and instructors have been built up, willing to work with difficult people, some of whom need a period of sheltered employment if they are to lead crime free lives.
There has already been a year's notice of the change from one system to another. Both the organisations that I mentioned, with strong support from the Probation Board, have been moving heaven and earth to adapt the new system to the needs of our clients. The matter has been discussed with the Training and Education Authority and taken to the highest levels of the Civil Service.
I regret to say that all this negotiation has been to no avail. Sixty or so training workshop places have already been lost, staff have been made redundant and the remaining few places are likely to close by the end of July. A community asset is being lost which will be extremely hard to replace. We understand that in this respect Northern Ireland is being treated worse than England where better transitional finance is available.
It is therefore with regret that I have to ask why was no special provision made for criminal justice trainees in Northern Ireland? How will the rehabilitation through work of ex-offenders be protected in future? Are Her Majesty's Government still committed—as has been claimed in the past—to crime prevention? If so, what is their approach to people who are often virtually unemployable? If Ministers are not concerned about adults, will they at least devote resources to young people, particularly those suspended, or excluded or dropping out from school? Will the Minister try to convince his colleagues of the urgency of these issues? It goes without saying that such issues involve a considerable number of different departments. I trust that they will therefore be considered in the round.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend the Minister for the thoughtful and detailed way in which he has introduced this appropriation order. We can well understand some of his feelings as, had circumstances been different, this discussion might have been more eventful. Along with others I regret that the order has been enacted in this way.
For some 18 years I sat on the Opposition Benches. I see some noble Lords on the other side of the House who were Ministers at that time. During that time we looked forward to these appropriation orders and the debates on them which gave us an opportunity to discuss

209
the affairs of Northern Ireland in some detail. That gave us the opportunity to have an input in those discussions. I feel sure that the new Northern Ireland Assembly will constitute a welcome change in that it will make the elected representatives accountable to the Assembly and to the people of Northern Ireland. God speed that day and may it bring peace and tranquillity with it!
I have received two letters from the Minister on the matters of the draft appropriation order and the main estimates for Northern Ireland departments. Those matters are closely interlinked in many ways. The Northern Ireland estimates 1999/2000 are relevant to our discussion tonight. I have some three points to put to the. Minister. The estimates are much more detailed than the order itself. As I say, the estimates apply to the years 1999/2000. The estimates comprise a well produced document which is worthy of close study by all who are interested in the development of the Northern Ireland economy and in the social well-being of the people of the Province.
Section 5 on page 19 of the estimates explains the details of parliamentary accountability and the order of estimates. These estimates apply to this House, the other place and any of the other new devolved parliamentary bodies in the United Kingdom. The document states,
"The accounting and audit arrangements for grants in aid for certain subscriptions and international organisations are indicated by a common set of symbols which are illustrated on page 24. The normal accounting and audit arrangements will not apply in certain other cases".
I think that is a strange statement. If certain areas do not meet the standard requirements of accounting and audit arrangements, they should still be subject to parliamentary democratic procedures. The Minister has already mentioned the sums that are allocated to various departments. Section 2 on page 83 of the document refers to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It states,
"The provision sought for 1999/2000 is 5.8 per cent lower than the final net provision for 1998/99 of £328,000 and 23.6 per cent higher than the forecast outturn for that year of £250,000".
I believe this matter should be discussed tonight. An overspend has been mentioned in the document. As is the case with other parliamentary bodies throughout the United Kingdom, the Northern Ireland Assembly must be accountable to Parliament and must not overspend its budget. That applies to present and to future circumstances.
Paragraph 2 on page 85 of the estimates states, with regard to the new Northern Ireland Assembly,
"The provision sought for 1999/2000 is £14,278,000 and reflects the initial cost of the new Ireland Assembly operating in the shadow form".
Apparently the new Northern Ireland Assembly has incurred an overspend of £6,628,000.
With those Northern Ireland citizens who believe in parliamentary democracy and parliamentary accountability I look forward to welcoming elected representatives who listen to the needs of the people who have elected them.
Like others, I feel sure that the Minister looks forward. He has spent a long time in Northern Ireland; I am sure he has learned many lessons and seen many challenging matters arising. We long for the day when
210
Northern Ireland Ministers will be accountable to the people of Northern Ireland themselves. At the same time we thank those who have filled the breach over the past number of years.
Lord Rathcavan: My Lords, in the short time available I should like to make a few points. First, can the Minister confirm that the Government have begun to implement the recommendations of the Economic Development Strategy Review, known as Strategy 2010, which was issued by his colleague, the Minister for the economy, Mr Adam Ingram? Many of the recommendations are exhortations to industry to broaden horizons, play to strengths and tackle weaknesses. An Economic Development Forum has already been established but there are some particular aspects where the Government can act and act now to help Northern Ireland to mirror the great success already being achieved by our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland.
I have raised before the serious problem of different rates of corporation tax across the land border—around 10 per cent in the Republic of Ireland against 30 per cent in Northern Ireland. I know the Minister will say, as usual, that that is the sacred turf of the Treasury, but the Chancellor made tax concessions for Northern Ireland a year ago on capital allowances. This has proved a valuable concession. The Minister referred to the successes of the Industrial Development Board. It has been valuable to those considering, inward investment.
But more needs to be done. Strategy 2010 emphasises that we must have a level or equivalent tax regime to our land neighbours. Will the Minister acknowledge this situation and flag it up as an issue which makes Northern Ireland uncompetitive; and, I might add, from which the Treasury is losing tax revenue from Northern Ireland companies which acquire manufacturing facilities across the border in the Republic of Ireland in order to maximise their tax liabilities in a more favourable regime?
Another cross-border tax leakage, estimated as a loss to the Treasury of well over £100 million, is currently being caused by the difference in excise duty on petrol and diesel—more than 17 pence a litre on unleaded petrol and 15 pence on diesel—which has led to widespread smuggling of road fuel. In border areas it is estimated that 48 filling stations have closed, with the loss of 250 jobs. Similar though smaller excise duty differences exist in the European Union. For example, the Dutch Government have introduced a subsidy scheme for road fuel retailers in border areas. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the Government, who are committed to further increases in these excise duties, will do about this real problem.
Another fiscal problem faces Northern Ireland with the proposal—or the "Marshall Plan" as it may be called—in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, on the business use of energy. He called for an energy consumption tax—to be introduced in next year's Finance Bill. The implications for energy-intensive companies such as Du Pont and Michelin and for textile processors, already suffering from Northern Ireland's

211
high electricity prices, are significant. It is important that the Government urgently address this further erosion of Northern Ireland's competitiveness by these proposals.
Perhaps I may comment on the funding situation for environmental programmes in the agricultural sector. I know that the Minister referred to some increases in this area, but it is rumoured that there is insufficient funding available to support the existing environmentally sensitive area schemes. Now we have the countryside management scheme which was announced in recent weeks. Will the Minister confirm that there will be adequate funding to support this and that it will not be rationed?
Finally, the Northern Ireland Office has, it is said, done a good deal with the Treasury to keep funds from the privatisation of Belfast Harbour for reinvestment in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister assure us that the harbour commissioners will get more commercial freedom ahead of privatisation to develop their business and its value? Can he assure us that the huge and valuable city centre properties owned by the harbour commissioners will go to the public good and not into private pockets, as happened with the privatisation of Belfast international airport?
I apologise for raising so many points. As we are running short of time, I would be happy for the Minister to write to me and place a copy of his reply in the Library.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may add my voice briefly to the debate and thank the Minister for presenting in such detail these appropriation orders. I can certainly confirm what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Blease. Perhaps he was referring to at least one of the former occupants of the position so ably occupied by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but I, too, recall fairly lengthy and detailed appropriation order debates.
Perhaps I may raise one or two points. One certainly may be in the line of an oration that I seem to remember giving when the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, was present in the Moses Room in Committee. A certain musical item was classified as "It's fate was pathetic and tied to the stake and burned as heretic" I may inject a slightly heretical note into the debate. I see that the noble Lord has his thinking cap on.
We have had great support—I would add mine—for all the efforts of the Minister's right honourable friend across the water, which has been reflected in what we read in the newspapers and the electronic media throughout the world.
In the very first line of Vote 1 appear the words "Market support". At the end of that paragraph, on page 3, there appears "Market development". Perhaps I could once again ask the Minister to look at that as a matter of particular importance. This year is an odd year. I am sure that the Minister will know that one of the world's great food fairs takes place in Cologne in Germany; Its traditional acronym is ANUGA. I hope that the Minister, if still in post—or, one might say, to be announced or to be confirmed—or, if there is any
212
problem, the First Minister or someone of similar stature, will attend this clearly important world gathering in Cologne.
Certainly whatever the Prime Minister may be discussing and whatever one sees in the political development of Northern Ireland, it is just as important to present the very professional face of Northern Ireland—certainly of the farming industry, the market support industry and the food industry, let alone other aspects of Northern Ireland—to members of the public from all round the world. This is equally important and equally welcome. I hope that the Minister will pass on my hope that somebody—I hope that it will be the Minister, if his tenure can be extended—will be, I hesitate to say banging the drum but making a suitable fuss with ANUGA in October this year.
I am delighted to see in the vote that there is stress laid on the scientific and veterinary services in the Department of Agriculture, together with other "spin off' or complementary aspects of the marvellous scientific traditions in Northern Ireland. I was not sure which sub-total were referred to in the vote, but I hope that any sums expended in this area will not diminish. I hope that the Minister will use his influence to see that the proportion of the sums expended in this area will be maintained.
I am delighted to see in Vote 2 that the reference is still to "water course management". In my career in the Department of Agriculture it used to be called "drainage". It may be in tribute to me that it was expanded to "water course management". Never use one word where two will do. But that is particularly relevant.
I am delighted to observe sea defences. I do not remember too much flooding in my time in the north. I recall that there was some fresh water flooding when a river bank gave way because of an enormous colony of rabbits. We sent in local sportsmen and that disposed of that problem. I hope that the Minister will take care of water course management; I hope that he will add all his influence to scientific and veterinary services; above all, I hope that he or perhaps his right honourable friend the Secretary of State—someone of stature—will go to ANUGA and push for Northern Ireland's excellent food industry and everyone involved in it.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I want to reinforce what the Minister said when he wished the new assembly success and hope that this will be the last time that we will have to debate a Northern Ireland appropriation order.
I have had the experience of debating appropriate orders in the old Stormont parliament, in the old Stormont assembly, in another place and in your Lordships' House. When an appropriation order was debated in the old Stormont assembly there were times when the debate lasted for two days. All the elected representatives from the various constituencies who were aware of the needs of those constituencies would have their say. I believe that Northern Ireland is the place where the vast amount of money allocated in the order should be debated. I have just had verified by one of the civil servants that the order covers expenditure of

213
£4.5 billion. That is a good deal of money by anyone's standards. I believe that the only place that that amount of money should be debated-where the money should be spent and from where it should be withheld-is Northern Ireland.
When, 20 or 30 years ago, Northern Ireland Members first raised matters at Westminster concerning their constituencies, the Hansard staff were nearly driven berserk. They were sending notes up and down to Members. They could not understand Members' pronunciation and they had particular difficulty with the Member for Antrim North. The number of place names that he mentioned in his appropriation speeches kept the Hansard staff going for two or three hours.
It is a long time since the elected representatives of Northern Ireland last had the opportunity to discuss an appropriation order and the expenditure of this money. They have not had responsibility for saying where that money should be spent—where a hospital should be built or where assistance should be given to some industries. An awful danger has arisen. A dependency culture has grown up in Northern Ireland. If you do not have responsibility for saying where the money is to be spent, it is all too easy to point the finger at British Ministers. We have seen that happen over the past 25 years. We have seen the various competing agencies in Northern Ireland demanding more assistance from the British Treasury, and sending people far offshore to demand money from the European Community. A dependency culture in any society is a very dangerous thing.
Northern Ireland has had to live without its own government. On the question of the £ million for the new assembly, it may not have been said in Parliament or in your Lordships' House, but on the streets of Northern Ireland, and in the bars and the pubs and the clubs, people are laughing about it. Who decided on this £ million? The figure was arrived at with gay abandon. They say, "Ah well, the British Government will have to pay for it". I believe that the increase in expenditure will prove to be totally unjustified.
I am saying to the Minister today, as I said to him when he first took on the responsibility for Northern Ireland, after congratulating him on what he had been able to do, that I hope that he will no longer be saddled with responsibility for governing Northern Ireland, and that Northern Ireland elected representatives, on the soil of Northern Ireland and in the constituencies of Northern Ireland, will take responsibility for an appropriation order such as this.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to the many Members of the House who have contributed to this debate. First, perhaps I may say a few words about the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I know that lie wanted to be here but I understand that he had a prior commitment with the TA, with which he is very involved. It is only for that reason that he was unable to be present. In saying that, I mean no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, on the Opposition Front Bench.
Perhaps I may take up the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. Yes, the Government clearly want devolution to happen. It is desirable for many reasons,
214
not the least of which is that it is right and proper that local Ministers and local members of the assembly should determine expenditure and should determine how money is spent in Northern Ireland. That is a politically desirable thing to happen. It is one the Government want to happen. It will be one of the many benefits of a handover of power to the assembly and to local Ministers. The sooner it happens, the better.
I turn to the many questions raised by noble Lords. If I happen to omit any point that has been raised, I shall write to the noble Lord concerned. I shall do my best to answer the questions of which I have made a note.
The concern raised most often by Members of the House was funding for the assembly and the Northern Ireland departments. There is no question that the assembly will be funded to the level that it requires. My honourable friend the Minister of State, Paul Murphy, is at present discussing this matter and will be able to say something more when the order is debated in the other place. But we will not leave the assembly without the necessary money. The money in the appropriation order is the pre-devolution amount, based on some £40 million. When the assembly takes over responsibility it will need have to have a larger sum of money to deal with the extra responsibilities that it will have to exercise as a full assembly. That also goes for the need to change from the present departmental of six to the new structure of 10 departments, plus the department at the centre. We have to find that money because the assembly must be able to function.
My noble friend Lord Fitt suggested that there was concern among people in Northern Ireland about the amount of money involved. The assembly indicated how much money it would need. On devolution, it will have to accept responsibility and be answerable to the people of Northern Ireland for the money that it thinks it necessary to spend on its operations. We want to facilitate that process, but responsibility for expenditure in the full devolved assembly will rest with the assembly, However, in the meantime, we want to facilitate the process so that when the assembly takes over there is a smooth transition and the money can be made available. The 14 million for 1999–2000 is an interim figure. It has to be. The additional requirements of the assembly will be addressed through the normal monitoring arrangements where provision can be reallocated to the assembly from easements elsewhere within the Northern Ireland block. But I repeat: there is no question of our failing to ensure that the assembly will have enough money for its requirements.
The fact is that the assembly did not give the Department of Finance and Personnel time to examine its estimates of what was needed—hence the lack of an agreed figure at this stage. The matter will be resolved, so I do not think it would be useful for me to go into the detailed points at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, made three points: about the assembly, the 10 departments and the absence of other provision. However, I think that those points have all been dealt with in what I have said. That is how those different headings of expenditure will be dealt with.

215
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked a number of questions. He referred to paragraph 5.4 on page 19 of the Estimates relating to the use of accounting symbols. The last sentence of the paragraph refers to the detail of the audit being carried out. A normal audit of a department may involve audit down to the transaction level. However, if it is grant-in-aid, the detail in the course of the audit in the appropriation account may not be at transaction level. In such cases the recipient body of that grant-in-aid will be subject to its own external audit arrangements and will therefore be accountable for the detailed way in which it deals with money that has been granted to it.
The noble Lord also asked questions about the figures for Northern Ireland Assembly expenditure at pages 83 and 85 of the Estimates. The figures relate to the residual expenditure of the old Northern Ireland assembly. If the noble Lord feels that it would be helpful, I am happy to write to him and give rather more detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about provision for integrating ex-offenders into society. He referred to a transition between ACE and the new deal. It may be necessary for me to write to the noble Lord. Ease of transition is a matter of concern to us; we want to make sure that nothing slips through from one system to another. We have tried to ensure an easy transition from ACE to the new deal. In relation to the noble Lord's specific point, if it is acceptable to him, I should like to write to him with more information.
The noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, asked a number of questions. The first dealt with the implementation of Economic Development Strategy 2010. The review of economic development strategy announced by my honourable friend Adam Ingram, the Minister for Economic Development, on 29th January 1998 was designed to produce a new economic development strategy for Northern Ireland up to the year 2010. The review was carried out as a collaborative exercise involving both the private and public sectors. It is for the Northern Ireland Assembly to consider and implement.
The report makes over 60 recommendations for developing the Northern Ireland economy over the coming decade. While it remains a matter for the devolved government to take much of the strategy forward, the day-to-day business of government must go on. Some issues raised in the economy development strategy review must be addressed now and cannot be delayed. The Minister for Economic Development has announced that he will begin to implement a number of these key issues, including the establishment of the proposed economic development forum, which will give social partners a strong, effective voice and a meaningful role in influencing and monitoring Strategy 2010.
The noble Lord also asked about the difficulties concerning excise duty and the differential with the Republic of Ireland. I fully appreciate the noble Lord's concerns on the price differential in fuel prices between the Republic and Northern Ireland. These reflect national policies. While I realise that that is of little
216
comfort to those petrol retailers facing business difficulties, the wider benefits of the levels of public expenditure announced by the Chancellor are in no small way made possible because of the UK-wide national revenue generation policy.
I am aware that various groups have been pressing for a subsidy scheme for petrol retailers in the Border areas of Northern Ireland similar to that in the Netherlands. However, the European Commission has questioned the legality of that state aid, and any similar schemes will most likely have difficulty in meeting the European state aid rules.
As regards smuggling, HM Customs will continue to deploy resources against illegal trade, as they have done with good success in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, also asked about the port of Belfast. He asked whether commercial freedom could be given to the port of Belfast prior to privatisation. I do not think that that is possible, because it would require legislation to ease its transition from trust board status to the kind of status referred to by the noble Lord. We are moving with all possible haste to implement the privatisation proposals. The position at present is that the committee established by the Assembly to consider the matter is still examining the proposals of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. The commissioners have put forward revised proposals dealing particularly with the issue of the landbank. The Harbour Commissioners will meet later this week to discuss that development. I am scheduled to meet the Assembly committee later this week. So the matter is under active consideration. Clearly, the Government are anxious that there should be no delay and progress should be made as rapidly as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, also referred to the effect of the energy tax in Northern Ireland. I recognise his concern. The matter has been raised with Treasury colleagues so that Northern Ireland interests can be taken into account when the levy is set.
As regards the funding of an environmental programme, the natural environment is one of the foundations on which we shall build the vibrant mixed-use rural economy to which the Government are committed. The new countryside management scheme which complements the existing ESA scheme means that we can now support farmers throughout Northern Ireland in adopting environmentally sensitive farming practices. We have been able to make £1.2 million available out of existing resources to enable the countryside management scheme to be introduced. That will allow up to 1,000 applications to be accepted. The case for additional funding for agri-environmental schemes will be considered against other priorities as part of the Government's implementation of the Agenda 2000 settlement.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, stressed the importance of international food fairs as a showcase for Northern Ireland agricultural products. I know of the noble Lord's direct experience over a number of years as the Minister in Northern Ireland responsible for agriculture. The noble Lord referred to the ANUGA fair in Cologne. I have managed to attend a number of food fairs. I went

217
to SIAL in Paris and I have been a couple of times to the seafood fair in Brussels, as well as attending a number of events located in Northern Ireland itself. I am happy, if time allows and if my responsibilities continue, to support Northern Ireland agriculture in whatever way is possible. Having got the beef ban lifted for Northern Ireland, we want to ensure that Northern Ireland products are successful on world markets. That is the way to encourage and help Northern Ireland agriculture.
believe that I have dealt with all the main points. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Bill
8.47 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("by virtue of") and insert ("because he holds")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 42 and 81.
These amendments differ slightly from our proposals in Committee. They seek to leave out the words, "by virtue of', and to insert the words, "because he holds". The Bill as presently drafted states that,
"No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage".
I suggest that the words should be changed and the Bill should read, "No one shall be a Member of the House of Lords because he holds a hereditary peerage".
The words that I have suggested are far clearer. I do not know exactly what "by virtue of' means. If a Peer is to be excluded from the House of Lords, I suggest that he or she should be excluded because he or she holds a hereditary peerage. In fact, everyone is here not "by 'virtue of a hereditary peerage or "by virtue of' a life peerage; Members are here by virtue of the Writ of Summons.
This goes to the heart of the matter. I respectfully suggest that the Government are wrong. If we are all here, it does not matter whether we are life Peers or hereditary Peers. The reason we are here is that we have received a Writ of Summons. When you receive a Writ of Summons, it summons you to Parliament. Once you have come to Parliament, the Writ is, as it were, a spent bullet and it has gone. You are here in Parliament having obeyed the Writ. Later we shall come to an amendment which I suggest is also correct. Once a person has come to Parliament and obeyed the Writ it cannot then be said that the Writ of Summons applies to some people for the remainder of the Parliament but for others it can be truncated half-way through.
As I believe I suggested to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor last time, it is rather like buying a railway ticket that permits you to travel from
218
London to Edinburgh. If one is thrown off at Peterborough, one will feel that has one has had a pretty raw deal. The fact is that the Writ of Summons brings one to Parliament. All of us are here by virtue of that Writ, not by virtue of a hereditary peerage or life peerage. I do not seek to make life difficult for the Government, but to help them. It is not impossible that they may be challenged on this matter. If they were good enough to change the wording to,
"because he holds a hereditary peerage",
the Bill would be clearer and the Government would be much more in the clear. I believe that those are excellent reasons why the Government should accept the amendment.
I know that the brief of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who I am certain is to reply, and all noble Lords on the Government Front Bench is to accept no amendment or argument, but the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is a gracious man, a big person and sometimes overrides his brief. I believe that iii this case he should override his brief because my amendment makes much more sense. I beg to move.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I have enormous respect for the noble Earl. However, in my respectful opinion, the wording of the Bill as drawn is as plain as a pikestaff. There is really no profit in debating this matter at any greater length.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is with every proper degree of diffidence that I venture a slightly longer opinion than that which has just fallen—I believe that that is the right expression to use in these circumfstances—from the noble and learned Lord who sits opposite. I also venture to intervene very diffidently for fear of spoiling the marvellous impression given by my noble friend Lord Ferrers in appealing to the better instincts of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
I simply did not understand the way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor defended the wording of this clause as a tigress defends her cubs. He appeared to believe that the determination of the Government to hold to their election manifesto would somehow be judged by whether they stuck to this wording. He did not appear to understand that all we suggested was that in our respectful opinion there was a measure of doubt that could be overcome. We had substantial debates on this clause in Committee and tried in vain to make clear, as my noble friend just that we sought simply to avoid uncertainty. After all, that is part of the function of this House.
We went to the extent of furnishing the Lord Chancellor with an opinion by Mr Lofthouse, Treasury counsel in peerage matters. He set out an argument that gave powerful weight to the point that the present wording might be successfully challenged because what made one a Member of this House was not the holding of a hereditary peerage but applying for, receiving and returning a Writ of Summons. It is common ground that until one has gone through that procedure one cannot fulfil one's duty to attend, speak and vote in this House. If one cannot fulfil the duties of a Member of the House

219
of Lords there must, surely, be a sensible argument, to put it no higher, that one is not a Member of the House of Lords. It may be said that one's membership is inchoate and it is only when one has gone through that procedure that one can fulfil one's duties.
All that we were saying in the amendments proposed then, and all that my noble friend suggests now, is that we should use language that puts the matter beyond doubt. Unfortunately, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at the beginning of his reply pointed out that Mr Lofthouse was not a Queen's Counsel. He is not a Queen's Counsel because he is Treasury junior counsel. It may be a small point, but if one becomes a Queen's Counsel one cannot do that job. The opinion needed to be dealt with on its merits. I do not say that it is right. With great respect to the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, I suggest that there is an argument to the contrary that can be supported by an advocate far more distinguished than myself, which is not a particularly high hurdle to overcome. Therefore, it is desirable to avoid doubt, if it can be avoided. That is exactly what my noble friend puts forward in his amendment.
For my part, I cannot see much difference between "by virtue of" and "because of". I believe that the Government have it well within their power to make absolutely clear that a person shall not be a Member of this House if, being the holder of a hereditary peerage, he has received a Writ of Summons. Of one thing I am sure: this matter will be challenged by a hereditary Peer at some time or other. Although it is always fun to see the Government with egg on their face, it is our function to avoid this happening as a result of uncertain drafting of legislation when that can be avoided.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with the thinking behind this amendment, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. An issue needs to be resolved. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, may be right in one respect. This may not be the best place to resolve this matter. It may not have escaped the notice of the Government Benches that my noble friend Lord Kingsland has tabled a Motion, on which we shall ask the opinion of the House, as to whether this particular matter should be referred to the Committee for Privileges at the earliest opportunity. After all, the Committee for Privileges is probably the correct forum in which such matters should be decided.
It may well be that we could have amended this Bill in Committee, but at the end of the day it resulted in a legal argument between different sides. I believe that it is better for those legal arguments to be resolved in what is as near as possible a court of law; namely, the Committee for Privileges. I understand that that is one of the purposes of that great committee. Although I very much welcome the opportunity that my noble friend has given us to debate the issue again, I believe that there is a better place in which it can be done; but I entirely
220
support his intention. There is a doubt which can be easily clarified, and it should be done at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, invited me to overturn my instructions in the brief, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, appealed to what he described as my better instincts. It is notoriously well known that I am not let out unaccompanied to give vent to my better instincts or to overrule the brief. The noble and learned Lord said that it was always fun to see a government with egg on their face. He had many years to savour that experience when he was such a distinguished member of the former government.
What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, says is both short and correct. If I had ever had the prospect of sitting with him judicially, I would have been able to say that I agreed with everything that had fallen from my noble and learned friend and had nothing to add. There is nothing to add. It is perfectly simple. We have said that the disqualification arises in effect by virtue of a hereditary peerage, and that includes any holder of a peerage by virtue of acceleration and any holder of a hereditary peerage by virtue of the termination of a peerage in abeyance. We needed to find a proposition that would flexibly cover direct and indirect relationships with hereditary peerages.
There is the point about the Writ of Summons. But the Writ of Summons runs only for someone who has an entitlement to it by virtue of an hereditary peerage. Indeed, the Writ is not simply a summons to come and take the Oath. The Writ requires the recipient to attend and treat and give counsel upon the affairs aforesaid. No one can sensibly suggest that turning up, taking the Oath and never returning, would be a proper, faithful response to that summons.
It is perfectly straightforward and clear. No one is to sit here by virtue of an hereditary peerage. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is about the remind me, the Bill states,
"by virtue of a hereditary peerage".
I think that we sufficiently knocked that argument about rather like a game of table tennis between us.
It is perfectly simple and perfectly plain. I cannot improve or further embroider upon what fell from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, began by saying, "I have enormous respect for the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers," I thought that hell was about to open up; and sure enough it did! He said that we have discussed the issue; it is perfectly simple; there is no more to be said. That was a very perfunctory argument. In the days when people were hanged for murder, if I had been in the dock and the noble and learned Lord had been the judge and had said, "You're guilty so there is no point in saying any more. You will hang", I should have thought that that was a pretty rotten judgment.
Perhaps I may respectfully and gently suggest that the noble and learned Lord might have done a little better. He might have said why the amendment was so wrong

221
and so awful. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden. This may not be the right answer but it is clearer and more satisfactory than the provision in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that my noble and learned friend said that we like to see the Government with egg on their face. My noble and learned friend did not say that. He said that periodically the Government have egg on their face and even we try to prevent that from happening.
It would be a great pity if there were a legal challenge and the Government were to find egg on their face. I should try not to smile and say, "We told you so". However, it seems, regretfully, that we shall not make this alteration. Whatever one says, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, says no to it, except that twice he referred to "an" hereditary peerage. I am sure that it was a slip of the tongue. But he had not the courage of his conviction at Committee stage to overturn his brief. When I tabled an amendment to change "a" to "an", the noble Lord said that we could not do that. What was the reason? Because the parliamentary draftsman has always put it that way. So we can change all the procedures for the opening of Parliament, and for introducing new Peers. We can change everything, but what the parliamentary draftsman says is sacrosanct. I should have thought that the noble Lord might have chased him and said, "You must be a bit more with it. Just use one more letter of the alphabet and make it 'an' instead of 'a", in particular when the noble Lord cannot stop himself saying "an" the whole time. It shows a defect in his character that he has not persuaded the parliamentary draftsman or the powers that be to accept that amendment. However, he did not do so and we have to live with that.
I suppose that we have to live with this provision, but I am tempted not to do so. I am tempted to ask your Lordships to consider whether it would be better to have "because he holds" a hereditary peerage as opposed to "by virtue of' a hereditary peerage. I am hesitant because my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said that the right way for this issue to be decided is in the Committee for Privileges. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in his usual skilful way failed to address that matter. Perhaps it was a little inconvenient for him. But if he were to say that the matter will be considered by the Committee for Privileges, I should be happy to withdraw the amendment. If he says that it will not be considered by the Committee for Privileges, I might ask your Lordships to consider whether we should put these words in the Bill.
I am sure that the House will give the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, leave to speak again if he felt willing.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I always say "an" just to tease the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and to check that he is still awake—and he always is—in exactly the same way as he always says "a" to check that I am still awake; and unfortunately I normally am!
222
It is not for me to pre-judge the wish of your Lordships. Therefore when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, says that a Motion may be brought forward it would be quite wrong, unprecedented, and wholly disrespectful for me to offer a view.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that puts me in a fix, as the noble Lord expected. I think that it would be a good idea to see what your Lordships think. I believe that it would be better to have these words in the Bill. view.
9.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 2

contents

Ashboume, L.

Mancrofi, L.

Bathurst, E.

Mayhew of Tv/ysden, I. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mersey, V.

Berners, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Boardman, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brentford, V.

Monson, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Montrose, D.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Clinton, L.

Moyne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Northbrook, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cross, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denham, L.

Quinton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Falmouth, V.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Rennell, L.

Fisher, L.

Romney, E.

Forbes, L.

SL John of Fawsley. L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Goschen, V.

Sharpies, B.

Gray, L.

Soulsby of Swartham Prior, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hooper, B.

Thatcher, B.

Iveagh, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Jopling, L.

Torrington, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Trefgame, L.

Kintore, E.

Trenchard, V.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Waddington, L.

Lyell, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

McConnell, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Carlisle, E.

Ahmed, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chandos, V.

Alli, L.

Chorley, L.

Amos, B.

Christopher, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Attenborough, L.

Crawley, B.

Bach, L.

David, B.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Blease, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Borrie, L.

Desai, L.

Brightman, L.

Dixon, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Burlison, L.

Dubs, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Eatwell, L.

223

Evans of Watford, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Fanington of Ribbleton, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gilbert, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Glanusk, L.

Newby, L.

Goodhart, L.

Peston, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Grantchester, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grenfell, L.

Putnam, L.

Hacking, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hanworth, V.

Rea, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Haskel, L.

Richard, L.

Hayman, B,

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Russell, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Sewel, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal]

Simon, V.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Kennet, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Thornton, B.

McInlosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Tomlinson, L.

Tope, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mackie of Beashie, L.

Walpole, L.

McNair, L.

Warner, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Weatherill, L.

Marsh, L.

Whitty, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Molloy, L.

Winston, L.

Monkswell, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a question with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. We have had a serious, long debate. I do not think that anybody would criticise anyone from any quarter of the House for the time taken on this important Bill. However, here we have an example where, after a fairly long debate, a member of the Opposition decided that the opinion of the House should be tested—I suspect that he had the full support of the Front Bench—only to find that the Conservative Whips were active at the Door in seeking to persuade members of their party not to vote. Is that in the interests of the House and its proper consideration of the Bill? Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House advise us on this matter?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, it is not for me to offer advice to the noble lord the Leader of the Opposition or, indeed, the Opposition Chief
224
Whip, who I see is not in his place, on the way in which they advise their Members to behave when a Division is called.
My noble friend is right that this Division was called by a member of the previous Conservative government. I believe, however, that he was not speaking in a Front Bench capacity but in a personal capacity, as he has done at other stages of the Bill. It is therefore obviously open to him to ask the opinion of the House, if he so wishes. It is for the Leader of the Opposition and the other Members of the Front Bench to advise their colleagues. It is not for me to have a view on that.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this is the most extraordinary debate that I have ever heard. I am completely amazed. Of course, what probably happened is that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, reminded himself just how awful it is being in government. He was probably just tucking into his main course downstairs in the Barry Room when the Division Bell rang and he had to struggle up here only to discover that the Labour Party had a majority of nearly 50. I understand his frustration at that, but that is what happens in government. It is not for me to give noble Lords opposite a lecture.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers did what was entirely appropriate as far as he was concerned. He was well within his rights. I am glad that he had so many people supporting him. I made my views from the Front Bench entirely plain for all to see. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be able to reflect at his leisure tomorrow when he reads Hansard that I did not seek to encourage the Conservative Party to vote. If the Opposition Whips were letting Conservatives know our view, I believe that to be remarkably sensible. I am glad that the machinery was as efficient as it clearly was.
I do not know whether it is the desire of the Government Front Bench to continue this debate or whether we can carry on with the business. I am rather keen to carry on with the business.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not so sure that I want to carry on with the business! The intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was extraordinary. I tabled this amendment, which I thought to be a jolly good amendment; and I suggested we had a Division on it. That was perfectly reasonable. Whether or not my Front Bench colleagues joined me was entirely a matter for them. I wanted to test the opinion of the House. If the result of the Division had been the other way round and we had won by 120 and they had lost by 60, the complaint would have been that we had bussed everyone in. Of course, they bussed everyone in, ranks and all. They all came out from the woodwork for the vote. Of course, when the Government win, that is fine and dandy; if we win, that is a wicked and terrible thing. I think the whole thing is a total farce. My noble friend was quite right: seeking a Division was perfectly justified. I am glad that all those who supported the amendment did so, and I am sorry for those who decided to go in the

225
opposite Lobby, including the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I think he made a great mistake, but there we are.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, in view of the advice that has come from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, we should cut the cackle and get on with this damn Bill.
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert—
("(2) But any holder of a hereditary peerage who has been elected to—

(a) the House of Commons,

(b) the European Parliament,

(c) the Scottish Parliament,

(d) the Northern Ireland Assembly,

(e) the National Assembly for Wales,

(f) a regional assembly in England,

(g) the Greater London Authority,

(h) a local authority, or

(i) consecutively to any of the bodies listed in paragraphs (a) to (h),

for a continuous period of seven years shall be entitled throughout his life to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House by virtue of that peerage on the completion of that period or, in the case of a member of the House of Commons, on the day after he ceases to be a member.
(3) In subsection (2) "local authority" means—

(a) in relation to England, a county, district or London borough council;

(b) in relation to Wales, a county or county borough council;

(c) in relation to Scotland, a council for a local government area, and

(d) in relation to Northern Ireland, a county, district or county borough council.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, we are having a bit more cackle, I am afraid. I hope that my Front Bench will give me equal support to that which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, received. I see that noble Lords opposite have been bussed in in large quantities, so I have not much faith.
I moved my amendment very late at night on our last day in Committee and was chided by the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms on several counts. It is to those counts that I wish to revert. I may be accused of going over old ground, but I am merely trying to correct the argument that was put against my amendment.
In the first instance, the noble Lord was astonished that anyone who retires, leaves office or loses his seat in another place should be entitled to a seat in your Lordships' House. I can look around this House and see a large number of Peers who have come here as a result of a misfortune at the ballot box. The noble Lord could have added that the Peer may have been deselected by the constituency or by Millbank bosses; and that would be another excellent reason why he or she would be a suitable and important addition to your Lordships' debates as a representative of unfashionable views of which this House is the essential preserver. It was the
226
noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who spoke so persuasively of the genetic pool and it is that genetic pool which I wish to preserve in this House.
My amendment requires seven years of public service which means that hereditary Peers will have been twice selected by the electorate. To be elected once may be a fluke; but surely to be elected twice is a stiff enough test of one's democratic legitimacy. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, spoke movingly of the automatic right under the gentle approach. This is one solution that reacts to the noble Lord's solution. To argue otherwise is simply to twist the reality: that a Peer may inherit many years after a period of service; he may inherit while he is a serving Member; he may indeed inherit after a general election at which his party receives a vote of no confidence. That appears to be the noble Lord's objection in chief. But in no way does it reduce the value of the Peer's service to the community in the past. He will, by means of this amendment, be a recipient of the privilege of his inheritance. That is the intention of this amendment.
I commend to the House the well argued defence of the hereditary principle which was defended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux.
The second complaint is that a regional assembly is included in the amendment. The noble Lord said that this is a concept that does not yet exist. I must disabuse the noble Lord of his error. He may not have been very happy with his memories of the recent election of MEPs, but I must remind him that the Government, at the behest of the Commission, have already divided the country into 11 Government Office regions to rearrange the voting structure of the electorate. It may be by the way and not particularly germane to this argument that the Government may be coming to regret the change in anticipation of the federal state of Europe to which we are being slyly encouraged. The regional assemblies do not yet exist, but it would be foolhardy not to include the prototypes that the Government have introduced in the drafting of this amendment.
Thirdly, we are told that it is not clear whether the Peer will sit for life or for one Parliament. As he will sit as a hereditary Peer, he will not therefore be subject to any future electoral event. As the noble Lord will recall, hereditary Peers have first to prove the legitimacy of their claim to their title and only then can the Writ of Summons be issued for that and succeeding Parliaments. I am advised that once a Writ of Summons is issued in a Parliament after the Bill is passed, then that Writ is for the life of that Peer. It can be claimed at the opening of each Parliament and cannot be abrogated except in circumstances of bankruptcy or "barminess".
Clause 4(2) says any Writ of Summons shall not have effect after the Session in which the Act takes effect. This amendment clearly and by implication addresses that clause in the instance of a Peer who has demonstrated his political and democratic legitimacy.
The noble Lord seems to have sought to rubbish my amendment and shows concern that a Peer who has been a Member of the other place could not seek re-election there. Presumably the speaking notes to which he

227
referred assumed that the Peer would only sit for one Parliament. It is therefore his notes that are rubbish and not my amendment. However, to make doubly clear I added to the amendment the phrase, "throughout his life". The Peer should keep his seat and his heirs and successors should have the right and responsibility to establish their own democratic legitimacy before claiming their own Writ of Summons for their own lifetime in turn.
I accept that this is in direct contradiction with the essence of the Bill, but it is a small concession to make to allow such a small band of exceptional hereditary Peers as will be enfranchised by this amendment to sit and vote and continue as representatives of an ancient and honourable past. This is my answer to the noble Lord's coup de grace when he explains that hereditary Peers are unacceptable in principle and in social or any other terms as a representative of the people of this country as a whole. My amendment raises the stakes to a level where the Peer has proven himself to be acceptable in exactly those terms.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish asked why there should be such discrimination. The answer is simple. Because he is a Peer whose rights in this House are immemorial, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, inferred in his acceptance of the genetic pool which they represent.
Amendment No. 21 is an amendment to the Weatherill amendment and will continue the element of hereditary peerage. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, sock it to them!
Lord Carter: My Lords,—
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government Chief Whip was extremely quick on his feet. I was still wondering whether my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam was going to say something else; clearly not.
This is clearly an important and interesting amendment. It deals with issues that the Government Front Bench must resolve and answer. At Committee the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that this Bill would end the rights of hereditary Peers to sit and vote. A few days later that was changed. I very much welcome that change.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in speaking in support of the Weatherill amendment, said that the election of hereditary Peers as proposed under Weatherill would have the result that they would have greater authority. If we follow that logic through, how much more so would the election of Peers from high office. Would not the House benefit from the services of my noble friends Lord Stockton, Lord Inglewood and Lord Bethell and others when they finish their long and triumphant service in the European Parliament?
It is said that your Lordships are not representative. Is not election to high office and service in that office for a period of seven years, which must imply that they have been re-elected, the mark of someone who has
228
been judged worthy by the people to represent them? It is said that they are not legitimate, but has not the fact of the election given them authority, as the noble and learned Lord conceded, and that authority will be given to representative Peers in respect of the Weatherill amendment? This amendment would retain in the House Peers who have been elected to a range of democratic bodies. That is a good thing. The Government are falling into the danger, in a fit of ideological abandon, of clearing people out of the House whose experience is of value, not just to the House but to the whole nation.
There is a small group who have had the legitimacy proclaimed by an election, an election incidentally from which the Front Bench team opposite have not benefited. Might it not be right for the Government to consider this small number of people who might be included on the list that my noble friend proposes? It may be that the amendment is too widely drawn and that my noble friend would want to reflect upon that before he brings it back at Third Reading. I hope that the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip who is clearly going to answer on this, will give an encouraging and constructive reply to my noble friend.
Earl Ferrers: Before the noble Lord, Lord Carter, rises again, I hope he will give this consideration and not do what his noble friend behind suggested that he should do when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, rose before. I do not know whether he was aware but the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said, "Sock it to them". That is neither a very agreeable nor a very friendly expression coming from the noble Lord behind. It was rather like a schoolboy with a catapult. This expression comes out once every other meeting on this Bill. I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will give a considered answer and a respectful answer and will not sock it to us.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, he is rattled.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, said that he was chided by me at Committee. I have to tell the noble Earl that I propose to continue the chiding. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, appeared a little reluctant to come to the Dispatch Box and, having heard his speech, I can understand why. My noble friend Lord Graham always says "Sock it to them" when a Front Bencher rises.
A very similar amendment was tabled in Committee and one of the criticisms levelled at it then was that it was unclear as to whether a Peer who met the criteria would sit for life in the House of Lords or just for the duration of a Parliament. This amendment removes this ambiguity by stressing that the entitlement to sit in the House of Lords is for life, which makes the amendment more curious than it was in Committee. It will allow hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords as of right after serving on another specified elected body for seven years. This continues to contradict the manifesto commitment because it continues to afford preferential treatment to hereditary Peers on the basis of

229
their birth. No other individuals who serve as elected representatives for the necessary period will be admitted to the House of Lords as of right.
In Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, said the purpose of this amendment was to retain an element of the hereditary principle. Notwithstanding the acceptance of the Weatherill amendment, your Lordships' House will by now fully understand that we are unable to accept this amendment and why we are unable to accept it. It directly contravenes the principle of ending the automatic right of an hereditary Peer to sit and vote.
In Committee, we pointed out the effects of the similar amendment and they remain in the amendment before us today. I ask whether it is only the hereditary Peers who will be able to prove their democratic legitimacy. This scheme is extraordinary because hereditary Peers who have been elected to other bodies have the automatic right to return to the House of Lords. I ask why they should be favoured over other members of those elected bodies who may be considered for membership of the House of Lords. The same argument against including people in the legislature because of accident of birth rather than because of individual merits applies.
In allowing the bodies listed in this amendment to act as types of workplaces where hereditary Peers can spend a seven year apprenticeship before entering this House insults the standing of all those worthwhile chambers. If hereditary Peers wish to continue their public service and stand for election to another body, then all well and good. But to suggest that once they have completed the seven year stint, they can then by right return to this place, is, I am afraid, unacceptable.
The noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, wants this amendment passed, in his own words, as a memorial to the service that the hereditary Peers have provided. I am second to none in acknowledging the public service of many hereditary Peers. This amendment is not the way to acknowledge that service. Therefore the noble Lord will not be surprised to learn that the Government are unable to accept this amendment.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: I am most grateful for the support which I have received from the Front Bench and from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Certainly I cannot accept the contention of the Chief Whip. I know that the Government's requirement is the elimination of all hereditary Peers. However, I suggest that the Government should respect the valuable service which they have offered. If this is the only way to do that, then they should accept the amendment.
However, we shall later deal with Amendment No. 21 which provides for the retention of the hereditary principle in the Weatherill amendment. Therefore, I shall await our discussions on that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 10:
Leave out Clause 1
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to speak at any great length to this amendment. As your Lordships know, Clause 1 provides that no one shall be a member of your Lordships' House by virtue of a hereditary peerage. However, there is a respectable view to the effect that none of us is here by virtue of hereditary peerage or, for that matter, a life peerage either. Rather we are here because of the Writ of Summons which we receive at the beginning of each Parliament.
The advice goes on to say that the Writ of Summons, once answered at the beginning of the Parliament, is valid for the whole of that Parliament. Those of us who have already in this Parliament answered the Writ cannot be required to leave, at least not in the terms of the Bill as presently drafted, until the end of the Parliament.
By contrast, those of us who have not yet attended this House in this Parliament would not now be able to do so if the Bill is passed in its present form. I recognise that this is a highly technical matter relating to long-established law of great complexity. I do not, for one moment, claim to be an expert in those matters. A number of other noble Lords have expressed a similar view to mine and perhaps some of them may speak again this evening.
Indeed, my noble friend Lord Kingsland has tabled a Motion to refer this matter to the Committee for Privileges, although he has not yet decided when he may do that. I hope that even at this late stage, the Government will recognise the doubt that there is surrounding this matter. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, as we have argued from these Benches more than once, we need to be sure that the Bill does, as intended, exclude hereditary Peers effectively. Mr Lofthouse has given his opinion that the clause is ineffective. If that is so, it can add nothing to the Bill. Therefore, it will have to go.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor asserted, while admitting he did not feel able to enter into what he called arcane questions of peerage law, that the clause is effective. Even if it is not, he has declared that what he wants is clear enough to your Lordships' House.
It is well known that there are many in your Lordships' House who believe that a declaration of intent from the Government Front Bench on any Bill which comes before the House is not enough, especially as, in the case of this Bill, it started with the premise that the purpose of the Bill was to exclude all hereditary Peers. Now we are told that it has a different purpose altogether— namely, to exclude some hereditary Peers, while investing others with what the noble and learned Lord has said is the greater authority of election. It is not peerage law which is arcane; it is the wheels within wheels, within wheels behind which rests what I will flatteringly call the Government's constitutional strategy.

231
The Clause 1 that went through another place and which was introduced in this House is now vitiated by the Clause 2 that the Government voted against in another place, voted for in your Lordships' House and have pledged to vote for in another place, but now warn they might vote against in another place if your Lordships do not behave. Do I make myself clear? If not, that makes my point. What I have described is government policy on Clause 1 of the Bill in a nutshell.
The way forward is to clarify the matter in what I hope I can modestly say is a Motion, which I intend at some stage to put before the House, to refer the effectiveness of this Bill to the Committee for Privileges. This matter has to be determined in some way or other. Either the Government accept amendments which unequivocally, and beyond all doubt, achieve the declared purposes of the Bill—an approach with which we said in Committee we would co-operate—or it must go to the test. There is no third way. As the Government have said that they will not withdraw and re-write this clause in a way that will clarify it, and I fear that my noble friend will not persuade them to do so tonight, we must therefore look to the Committee for Privileges.
In his reply, I hope that the Minister will assure the House that the Government will not seek to resist the reference of this matter to the Committee for Privileges; indeed, to the contrary, I hope that that they will confirm that they will support my noble friend's amendment to clarify the ambiguities of Clause I by reference to the Committee for Privileges.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I hope to emulate the economy shown by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. This is a wrecking amendment. No one can be in any doubt about that; there is no alternative put forward by way of substitution. I repeat what has been said so often before: Clause 1 is drafted in a clear way, it is clear as to its effect, and it is clear as to why it works. It is comprehensive and it is plain. Those are significant virtues.
I do not believe that there is any doubt about the effect of Clause 1. Therefore, we do not support the amendment. If it is put to the test, we shall invite noble Lords not to accede to it. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that he wants the matter put beyond all doubt. We believe that it is. On a reading of the opinion of Mr Lofthouse, we believe that his opinion is not correct in law.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, then asked if I would say whether we would support his Motion. When I know the terms of his Motion and the date of it, and indeed have heard his arguments, I, or one of my colleagues, will give the Government's response. We do not believe that that is necessary. We believe that it is perfectly plain. I do not believe that the Weatherill amendment, of which, as far as I know, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is a supporter,
232
vitiates Clause 1 at all. Indeed, I would ask, perhaps rhetorically, if it did vitiate Clause 1, why on earth did they agree to it in the first place?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I listened with care to the Minister's answer but I remain pretty uncertain as to the response of the Government to the questions put by myself and more effectively, and more articulately, by my noble friend Lord Kingsland. There is a respectable view to the effect that Clause 1 is not effective as the Government propose. That respectable view is not confined to noble Lords on this side of the House; indeed, it is not confined to Mr Lofthouse. Other distinguished lawyers have expressed themselves to the effect that there is doubt.
Why do the Government persist with Clause 1 of this Bill which—whatever may be one's position—is not clear and is clearly in doubt? However, the Government persist with it. My noble friend Lord Kingsland is therefore right to suggest that perhaps this matter should be considered by the Committee for Privileges when he moves his Motion in due course. If he does, I shall support him and I hope that the Government will not oppose it. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

House of Lords Bill

  MEMBERSHIP OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
  (".—(1) From the day on which this Act comes into force, the members of the House of Lords who shall be entitled to sit and vote in that House shall be—

  (a) the Lords Spiritual;

  (b) any holder of a peerage under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876;

  (c) not more than 700 peers who are elected in accordance with subsections (4) and (5);

  (d) any person who became a member of the House of Lords by virtue of the Life Peerages Act 1958 in any of the four Sessions preceding the Session in which this Act is passed: and

  (e) subject to subsection (2) below, any person who receives a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords by virtue of the Life Peerages Act 1958 after the date on which this Act is passed.

  (2) Any person who receives a writ of summons under subsection (1)(e) shall be entitled to sit and to vote in the House of Lords for a period of 5 years, after which he may stand for election under subsections (4) and (5).
  (3) From the day on which this Act comes into force—

  (i) all peers who would have been entitled to receive a writ of summons by virtue of the Life Peerages Act 1958 to attend the House of Lords but for the passing of this Act, and

  (ii) all peers who have been members of that House under subsection (1)(e) for a period of 5 years,

  shall be entitled to sit, but not to vote, in proceedings in that House.
  (4) The members of the House under subsection (1)(c) shall be comprised of not more than—

  (a) 240 Cross Bench peers elected by Cross Bench peers;

  (b) 200 Labour peers elected by Labour peers;

  (c) 200 Conservative peers elected by Conservative peers: and

  (d) 60 Liberal Democrat peers elected by Liberal Democrat peers.

  (5) The electors for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) and (4) shall he members of the House of Lords at the date on which the election is held who—

  (a) have attended at least 10 per cent of sitting days in each of the 2 Sessions preceding the election, or

  (b) if they have become a member of the House in either of the 2 Sessions preceding the election, have attended at least ten percent of sitting days since the day on which they were introduced.

  (6) The Clerk of the Parliaments shall certify—

  (a) the number of days of attendance of each member, and

  (b) the total number of days on which the House sat,

  referred to in subsection (5).
  (7) Standing Orders of the House of Lords shall make provision relating to the holding and conduct of elections under this section, and that such elections shall he held at intervals of 7 years.
  (8) Subject to subsection (10), the Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument amend any number specified in subsection (4), but only to give effect to a resolution of the House of Lords.
  (9) An order under subsection (8) shall be laid in draft before, and shall be subject to the affirmative resolution of, each House of Parliament.
  (10) The two political parties with the largest number of seats in the House of Commons shall be entitled to equal representation in the House of Lords.
  (11) Any question whether a person is elected under this section shall he decided by the Clerk of the Parliaments.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 is an improvement on the amendment which I tabled at Committee stage on 17th May at cols. 43–59 of Hansard, and which we discussed further on 25th May at cols. 908–914, when I moved that the new Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill.
  However, I am advised in no fewer than three memoranda from the Public Bill Office, signed by the Clerk Assistant, that the amendment is now prima facie hybrid, although I was not so advised when we debated its progenitor on 17th May in Committee. One of the three memoranda covers only Amendment No. 11; the other two cover also Amendment No. 20 of my noble friend Lord Coleraine.
  I have to confess to grave ignorance, in that I do not understand hybridity, and I fancy that I am not entirely alone in your Lordships' House in that incomprehension. However, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn—if it is he who is to reply for the Government—understands hybridity. Therefore this is a good opportunity to ask the noble Lord to explain it to us in simple terms.
  Part of my confusion arises from the wording in the Public Bill Office's three memoranda, which is identical, and which I therefore assume has been carefully considered. That wording states that both this Amendment No. 11 and Amendment No. 20 of my noble friend Lord Coleraine are prima facie hybrid because,
  234
  "Each of these amendments, by including in the Bill a specific allocation to different parties within the House, affects the private interests of some hereditary Peers differently from the private interests of other hereditary Peers".
  So it would seem that this problem of hybridity arises when a Bill affects the private interests of some Peers, hereditary or otherwise, differently from the private interests of other hereditary Peers in this case. If that is so, can the noble Lord, Lord Mostyn, explain why the new Clause 2 does not make the Bill hybrid? Surely the private interests of the 542 hereditary Peers who are to be excluded from your Lordships' House are affected differently from those private interests of the 92 hereditary Peers who are to be allowed to remain. Surely it is anyway inescapable that the interests of those two hereditary Peers holding the offices of Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain, who are thus specifically identified and allocated for retention on the face of the Bill, must be affected differently from the rest of the 632 hereditary Peers who have to face election. In short, can the noble Lord explain why the new Clause 2 does not make the Bill hybrid?
  Can the noble Lord also explain another difficulty which I have with these memoranda? If hybridity occurs when one's private interests are affected differently from the private interests of others, surely Clause 1 of the Bill as originally drafted makes the Bill hybrid because hereditary Peers are excluded and appointed Peers are not. In that respect will the noble Lord explain the significance of the word "hereditary" in the memoranda? Does hybridity in this Bill occur only when the private interests of some hereditary Peers are affected differently from the private interests of other hereditary Peers—as the memoranda suggest—and, if so, why?
  Finally, and more generally, before I leave the question of hybridity, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mostyn, to tell us why it matters if the Bill—
  Lord Acton: My Lords, it is the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I apologise if I got that wrong. Of course I know perfectly well that it is the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and I hope that I only got it wrong once, if I got it wrong.
  Lord Acton: Twice!
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in which case I apologise doubly to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
  Can the noble Lord tell us why it matters if the Bill is indeed hybrid? The last paragraph of the memoranda which I have mentioned says that were either this amendment or Amendment No. 20 carried the Bill would have to be referred to the Examiners, whoever they may be. Why does that matter? What happens to the Bill if the examiners agree that it is indeed hybrid? Can we pass it anyway or does it all have to go back to square one?

  235
  I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that the answers to these questions will help me to decide whether to press the amendment to a Division today or whether to bring it back at Third Reading denuded of the elements which might cause it to be hybrid. I must confess that, with or without hybridity, depending on what the noble Lord may say, that might in any case be the better course for the amendment. As I understand it, it would simply require subsection (4) of the amendment to omit the specific allocations to different parties within the House and to follow instead the procedure set out in the new Clause 2 of the Bill, specifically subsections (4) and (5) of that clause.
  In other words, the allocations between the political parties and the Cross-Benches would be covered by Standing Orders and not placed on the face of the Bill. With that in mind, I will endeavour to put draft Standing Orders in your Lordships' Library for consideration, much in the same way as there are draft Standing Orders in your Lordships' Library for what used to be called the Weatherill amendment and which is now Clause 2 of the Bill.
  In addition, I am indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for pointing out to me in a letter that subsection (10) of the amendment as drafted could lead to difficulty in the event of a coalition Government in the House of Commons. It may therefore be sensible also to leave to Standing Orders the aim of that subsection, which is to ensure that the two main power blocks in the other place should have equal representation in your Lordships' House. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, so succinctly put it in his letter to me—I hope he does not mind me quoting him:
  "The less the House of Lords has to do with political parties, the better".
  The noble and learned Lord will find exactly those sentiments expressed in our Committee stage debate on 17th May (Official Report, cols. 44–45), when I first introduced the amendment. They are sentiments with which the vast majority of the electorate of this country would agree, even if they do not play at all well here in the goldfish bowl of Westminster. Anyway, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his advice.
  Perhaps I may now turn, finally and briefly, to the rest of the amendment. It is only a slightly altered and improved version of the amendment I moved in Committee on 17th May and to which I referred rather late at night on recommitment on 25th May. To give a very brief précis, it would leave all Peers with speaking rights for the duration of the interim House. On the other hand, while leaving the Bishops and the Law Lords as they are, it would remove the voting rights of all other Peers, both hereditary and appointed. The amendment would then set up four electoral colleges, one for each political party and one for the Cross-Benches, to elect 700 voting Peers. It thus avoids the contentious issue of how many hereditary Peers might be able to vote in the interim House because that number would simply emerge from the electoral process. There might be more than 92, but there might be fewer.
  236
  Other features of the amendment are that only those who had attended at least 10 per cent of the available sitting days in each of the two preceding Sessions would be eligible to vote, although all Peers could stand for election to become a voting Peer. Newly appointed Peers would be able to speak and vote for five years before they were required to face an election, which would decide whether they could continue to vote. The amendment suggests that elections should be held every seven years. However, new hereditary Peers would only be able to speak but not to vote unless and until they were elected in due course to do so.
  That, very briefly, is what the amendment would do. I submit that it has some clear advantages over the present Clause 2 of the Bill. I put those advantages to the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal on 17th May, and more specifically to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on 25th May. It is a matter of record that neither the noble Baroness nor the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made any attempt to answer at least five important propositions about this amendment which I put as questions to the Government as reported at col. 911 of Hansard on 25th May.
  I have today warned those who are advising the noble Baroness, the noble Lord and the Government that I would be returning to these questions and have to say that I hope for answers to all of them. I trust that the House will not find this hope in any way exaggerated or unreasonable. Indeed I should have thought that your Lordships would agree that it is the duty of the Government to answer pertinent questions during our debates. To refuse point blank to do so, as did the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on 25th May, seems to me to be a serious abrogation of that duty. It may well be that the Government find the answers to the questions uncomfortable, because they expose how mistaken the Government have been to support what was the Weatherill amendment and has now become the new Clause 2 of the Bill, which this amendment would replace.
  By the same token, I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend Lord Strathclyde also to answer these questions when he comes to comment on the amendment. So far in our debates he has indicated that he believes that this amendment is indeed better than Weatherill or Clause 2, but for reasons which are not clear to me, he refuses to support it. Worse still, he has said that he would vote against the amendment if I were to press it to a Division, which does not exactly encourage one to do so.
  Here are the questions again. First, do the Government and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde agree that under Clause 2 as drafted a number of excellent hereditary Peers will be excluded from the interim House, while a large number of less than excellent appointed Peers will remain? What does that do for the quality of the interim House?
  Secondly, do they agree that one of the most unsatisfactory aspects of the present composition of your Lordships' House—perhaps the most unsatisfactory aspect—is the preponderance of Conservative Peers, and that Clause 2 prolongs that

  237
  preponderance? They will recall that the attendant draft standing orders to Clause 2 give at least 42 of the hereditary Peers who are to remain to the Conservatives, only 18 to the Cross Benches, only three to the Liberal Democrats and only two to the Labour Party.
  Thirdly, do they agree that by supporting Clause 2 the Government have abrogated that part of their manifesto which said that they would remove the right of all hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships' interim House?
  Fourthly, do they agree that the power to legislate in your Lordships' House rests almost entirely upon the power to vote? That is a question that I put to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, during the debate raised by his noble friend Lord Randall of St. Budeaux. I did not receive an answer to it then.
  Fifthly, do they agree that there is a possibility, however remote, that the interim House may last for longer than five years?
  Sixthly and finally, and much the most important of all, do they agree that we all share a clear duty to the nation to set up the best possible interim House, however long that House may last? Those are the six questions.
  Once again, I have to point out to the Government and to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that, if they answer those questions honestly, they will have no alternative but to agree that this amendment is far better than the new Clause 2, and that they should therefore support it.
  I would also remind them that at least 18 amendments to the Weatherill amendment, as it then was, were taken off the un-marshalled list in order to allow those amendments to be taken after the Weatherill amendment became part of the Bill. That is why the Bill returned on re-commitment on 25th May. So to me it is simply not acceptable for them to turn round now and say that, as the Weatherill amendment was so strongly supported, it cannot now be improved upon or replaced.
  The Weatherill amendment was indeed carried by 351 votes to 32. But, for reasons which I set out at col. 909 on 25th May and shall not repeat now, it is also clear that a number of noble Lords supported the Weatherill amendment precisely because they wished to encourage the Government to abrogate their manifesto commitment, as indeed they did.
  So I look forward to the answers from the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government and indeed from my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, if he is to continue to oppose this amendment, to the six questions that I have put. I beg to move.
  10 p.m.
  Lord Brightman: My Lords, I shall speak on only one point. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, began by raising questions of hybridity. According to Erskine May, it is open to any Lord who considers that a public Bill may be hybrid or has become hybrid as a result of any amendment made to it, to move that the Bill be referred to examiners. There is no such Motion
  238
  before the House now. I suggest that in those circumstances it would not be in order for us to go into questions of hybridity now.
  Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch has brought forward his amendment again in an improved form. I congratulate him both on his courage and on his good sense. I spoke in support of my noble friend's amendment in Committee and with the leave of the House I should like to do so again, although I promise to be briefer.
  I voted for the Weatherill amendment because I thought that it would make a bad Bill better. However, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, should we not try to build on his achievement and make the Bill better still—or rather, even less bad, depending on how you look at it.
  We are told that it is impossible to consider whether there are better ways to bring about stage one reform of this House because Weatherill represents the only compromise to which the Government are prepared to agree. However, it is fundamentally wrong, especially on a matter of such great constitutional importance, not to try to improve further on the Weatherill proposals. I believe that my noble friend's amendment is better from the point of view of all parties. It would certainly be better for the country. It has, as it were, something for everyone.
  Under my noble friend's amendment, the government party achieve parity with the Conservative Party immediately; the Liberal Democrats would have 60 voting Peers rather than 48 or so, which I believe is what the Weatherill amendment would give them; Conservative Peers would be able to elect the 200 Peers whom they want to represent them as voting Peers. The Government would have discharged their manifesto commitment in that no one would be a Member of this House only because he holds a hereditary peerage. Several noble Lords opposite have questioned whether other amendments debated today would satisfy the manifesto commitment, but the degree to which that commitment would be satisfied by my noble friend's amendment is rather greater than the degree to which many other manifesto commitments of all governments have been satisfied. The Cross-Bench Peers would be the largest group. They would be able to choose the 240 Peers they wished to represent them. Their presence would ensure that this House did not become too party-political. Under the Weatherill proposals, the Cross-Bench Peers will not be a large enough group to prevent the politicisation of the House. All elected Peers would have their authority enhanced, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has told us in connection with the Weatherill amendment. But under my noble friend's amendment their authority would he doubly enhanced, because they would have been elected by all their peers, not just by the hereditaries.
  My noble friend's amendment also permits all present Members of the House to continue to sit and speak. That has several advantages. First, if there were a second election before stage two was implemented the electorate would have a chance to get to know the

  239
  candidates. Secondly, the interim House would not be deprived of any of its present collective experience, skill, ability and knowledge. Thirdly, the link with the present House would be closer, which would be good for the continuity and functioning of the House. Fourthly, the link between the peerage and the House would be maintained in a way that better reflected our tradition of gradually evolving constitutional arrangements and paid greater regard to history whose importance we should not forget.
  I am no lawyer and certainly do not understand hybridity. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will enlighten us in his reply to my noble friend. I cannot understand the argument that my noble friend's amendment would make the Bill hybrid any more than it is already with or without the Weatherill amendment; rather, Peers would still be able to participate even though not all of them could vote. I therefore believe that the degree of hybridity in the Bill would he reduced by my noble friend's amendment. The effect of his amendment would be rather similar, at least in the short term, to that moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux. Both amendments correct the substantial imbalance in voting strength between the two largest parties without depriving your Lordships' House of the benefit, if it be such, of the contribution that any one of your Lordships may bring to this place.
  I have some sympathy with the objectives of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, although I believe that his weighted voting system introduces complications which the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Pearson does not. The Bill incorporating the Weatherill amendment is not as effective in achieving parity of voting strength between the two major parties as either my noble friend's amendment or that of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. In reply to his noble friend Lord Randall, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that the Government were unable to support the amendment because the actuarial calculation showed that the last hereditary Peer would die in 2068. But it is likely that under Weatherill the same actuarial calculation would predict that the last of the 92 exempted hereditary Peers would die not much earlier than 2068. But, surely, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, misunderstands that the amendments moved by his noble friend Lord Randall, my noble friend Lord Pearson and the Weatherill amendment, which is now Clause 2 of the Bill, are all proposals for the transitional House.
  The Weatherill amendment has made a bad Bill better and it is incumbent on your Lordships' House to try to make the Bill better still. The very sensible amendment introduced at Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, which would have provided those of your Lordships who are Privy Councillors with a through train to the transitional House, would have been one way to do so. I am very sorry to see that so far he has not tabled that amendment again at Report stage. I hope that he will still do so or, if not now, at Third Reading.
  240
  My noble friend Lord Strathclyde earlier this afternoon mentioned various other ways in which your Lordships could improve the Bill beyond the Weatherill amendment. I agree with him, and will give him my wholehearted support. However, I believe that the scheme introduced by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pearson would provide for a better transitional House than that which would result from any other amendment that your Lordships have debated during our deliberations on the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will support it.
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I have added my name in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Like so many of us in this House, I am not legally qualified but do heed advice from those who are. I believe that the majority of noble Lords in the House have received a copy of counsel's opinion on this particular Bill.
  One of the pieces of advice that I have been given relates to a statement made in 1876 by Lord Cairns, who is well known to the legal profession, relating to the constitution. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I refer again to the opinion which I may have sent to many noble Lords. It may help them to understand why I put my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. The point relates specifically to hybridity rather than numbers although the two issues are interrelated. Lord Cairns described public law. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, may wish to correct me if I am wrong. Public law is the law of the constitution, peerage law and the law of Parliament. The law of real property, that is to say land, is private law. Those are two distinctions.
  Noble Lords will understand that many hereditary peerages create private law as well as public law rights. All peerages originally created by Writ, and most peerages created by Letters Patent confer private property rights. The modern peerages created by Letters Patent, in particular those with no link to the land, probably do not create private property rights and are governed by public law only.
  It is clear that that differential impact probably makes it questionable as to whether or not the House of Lords Bill is a hybrid Bill. My convenor sits alongside me. However, I fear that by creating two divisions within the peerage—that is, Lords of Parliament as a particular class, and those without parliamentary rights as another—the amendment of my noble friend Lord Weatherill almost certainly makes Clause 2 hybrid. The same would be the case as regards the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. We shall all be interested to hear the response of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to the amendment.
  Lord Newby: My Lords, at this time of the evening, we look forward with eager anticipation to the response—indeed, the dissertation—of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on hybridity. If the question of hybridity arose, we on these Benches would be opposed to it.
  The amendment drives a coach and horses through the purpose of the Bill. Before it was changed as a result of the Weatherill amendment, its purpose was to end

  241
  membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage. The effect of the amendment is limited in terms of the way this House is composed. It has no effect on the Labour Benches. There would not need to be an election of the 200 Labour Peers because there are not 200 Labour Peers. There would not need to be an election on these Benches because although there are more than 60 Peers—there are 68 Liberal Democrat Peers—more than eight of those fall within paragraph (d) and would therefore be exempted from needing to stand for election.
  The only Members of your Lordships' House affected by the amendment would be the Conservatives—they would lose 250 Members—and the Cross-Benchers who would lose 75 Members. They would still be able to sit and speak in this House but would be unable to vote. It is a limited amendment which is completely at odds with the fundamental purpose of the Bill.
  It also has within it a number of anomalies for which in theory I should be grateful. As I fall under subsection (1)(d) of the new clause—I received my peerage under the Life Peerages Act in one of the four Sessions preceding the Session in which this Bill will be passed—I am one of the unique category of people who will never have to stand for election. The Bill provides that any person who became a Member of your Lordships' House during that period is in a separate category and in the same position as the Lords Spiritual and any holder of a peerage under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act in not being required to stand for election under any circumstances.
  We believe that the amendment is wrong in principle and is full of anomalies in any event. Therefore, we oppose it.
  Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Pearson. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, seems to have been kicked into the long grass and the amendment tabled by my old friend Lord Pearson is our only alternative to Clause 2, the Weatherill amendment. On that score alone, it is worth your Lordships' consideration. However, I wish particularly to reinforce my noble friend's question to the Government Front Bench with regard to his six questions. It deserves the courtesy of a reply on those fundamental questions.
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the House should be indebted to my noble friend for bringing forward a comprehensive scheme for reforming the House. I know that he has always thought constructively and deeply on these matters and I recognise, as do many Members of this House, that his is a scheme with many merits. First, it meets the demand for broad parity between the parties, which the Government seek and which some feel is the motivation behind the Bill. But as I pointed out at an earlier stage—my noble friend agreed with me—I fear that 240 Cross-Bench Peers in a House of 753 is more than the Government would wish to see. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House expressed a certain restlessness about the 200 Labour Peers and the mechanism for reaching that. But who knows whether
  242
  in the next few weeks we shall reach the number of 200 Peers—or may be not. Indeed, it may well be that the desire to bring in new Labour Peers in tranches is one reason why this Bill does not include a statutory appointments commission, an omission that we shall seek to remedy next week.
  I am very much attracted to the idea that the House should be selected from the best and most able Peers, as my noble friend envisages. He is right to hark hack to those days, sadly not to be seen again, when no distinction was drawn between different categories of Peer. That particular poison has now been introduced into this House and I am attracted to the theoretical idea of a House chosen differently.
  My noble friend challenges me to answer the questions that he raises. Perhaps I may do him the courtesy of briefly running through them. First, he asked whether a number of excellent hereditary Peers will be excluded from your Lordships' interim House. I agree with him. The second question was whether one of the most unsatisfactory aspects about the present composition of your Lordships' House is the preponderance of Conservative Members. The answer to that is no. His third question was whether the Government have abrogated their manifesto. The answer to that is yes. The fourth question was whether I agreed that the power to legislate in your Lordships' House rests almost entirely on the power to vote. Yes, I agree with that; and I also agree with the fifth and sixth questions. I hope that that satisfies my noble friend, if not the rest of the House.
  I know that what I say next will disappoint my noble friend. We have to live in this world, which is defined by the huge majority in another place and a Government often with a narrow mind and closed ears on new and inventive ideas to reform this place. We have to live in a world where, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House told us only an hour or two ago, the Government are determined to proceed on this without delay. The reality is that this Government have declared that they will not accept this as an alternative to the Weatherill proposal. However heavily we may vote, however right we may be, the Government, as they showed on the matter of the closed list, will use their majority in another place to have their way.
  Your Lordships do not need me to say that if the Government are driven to this, we will see every hereditary Peer driven from this House. We will see pass a Bill that almost all your Lordships know in their hearts was, in its original form, one of the very worst ever to come to this House. We shall lose that continuity of tradition and good sense which allows your Lordships to exercise a mild, restraining hand on even such a doctrinaire government as the current one.
  I do not relish saying this, and my noble friend may consider it a weakness that I do, but I hope that he and others will do me at least the honour of understanding that the advice I give is the advice that I believe is in the best interests of this House and the independence of this House.
  This House has voted for the Weatherill amendment by an overwhelming majority. It is still open for us to seek, as this House must always seek, to improve the

  243
  Bill before us. That, I promise your Lordships, we will do. However, to seek to move what is in some respects an alternative Bill is, for all the merits mentioned by my noble friend and others, sadly, not practical politics. If we do that we risk losing what we have won so far—a massive repudiation of the manifesto commitment—and the prospect which we still have of using this Bill to impose a check on the power of the executive to misuse the power of patronage in the future.
  For those reasons, and also because the House has so recently determined the Weatherill amendment, I do not feel able to support my noble friend if he presses his amendment tonight, but I hope that he has some satisfaction in the knowledge that I much admire and respect the way in which he has brought this matter before the House.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if I have understood the thrust of the observations and submissions made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the questions divide themselves conveniently into three categories. The first relates to the text of the amendments, the second to the hybridity and the third to the five questions which are now six.
  I understand fully the advice given to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. However, the House, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is entitled to as competent an answer as I can attempt on the question of hybridity.
  As regard the amendments, it is desired that there should be a House consisting of 26 Lords Spiritual, any holder of a peerage under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act—which means Law Lords and retired Law Lords—not more than 700 Peers who are elected; anyone who became a Member of this House by virtue of the Life Peerages Act 1958 in any of the four preceding Sessions and any person subject to subsection (2) who receives a Writ of Summons to attend this House by virtue of the Life Peerages Act 1958 after the date on which the Act is passed.
  Furthermore—I am not sure that I understood any clear explanation of this—all Peers who have been Members of the House under subsection 1(e) for a period of five years would be entitled to sit, but not to vote, in our proceedings. I am not sure whether the noble Lord explained the rationale for that. If he did and I missed it, I am sorry, but I do not think he did.
  The noble Lord then goes into some detail, which has been touched on: 240 Cross-Bench Peers, elected by Cross-Bench Peers 200 Labour Peers similarly, 200 Conservative Peers similarly and 60 Liberal Democrats elected similarly by the Liberal Democrat Peers. Then there are various details about elections.
  None of the amendments is acceptable to the Government. They are not acceptable to the Official Opposition. Both the Government and the Opposition have said that to your Lordships, and therefore to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on two previous occasions.
  244
  My advice to my colleagues would be that we should vote against it. I understand quite clearly that that is the stance adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. We simply cannot accept this. As has been rightly said from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, it drives a coach and horses through the point of the Bill. Certainly, it is wholly incompatible with the Weatherill compromise, for the reasons identified by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Those are our objections to the amendments.
  On the question of hybridity, Clause 2 gives all hereditary Peers the same chance. It does not specify any division. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, gives Tory Peers a different chance of continuing membership from Labour Peers. The Earl Marshal and the Great Chamberlain are in a class of their own. It is, I readily concede, quite a small class, but it is in fact a class which is treated equally within itself.
  The same is true of Clause 1 in relation to all hereditary Peers. I see the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, smiling very charmingly, but he asked me this and I am telling him. I am assisting your Lordships in your deliberations. That is the short answer to the question of hybridity.
  If the question of hybridity arises prima facie—it does on Amendment No. 11—my advice, which I transmit for your Lordships' assistance, is that it would be necessary for the Chairman of Committees to table a Motion after the conclusion of Report stage to refer the Bill to the Examiners in respect of what is presently Amendment No. 11. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, asked what the consequences of that would be. Plainly, there would be a very substantial delay. He might be able to bear that with some fortitude; we would not. I hope I am putting our cards as clearly face upwards on the table as I possibly can. I further understand, if I have the advice correct, that there would be an opportunity then for Petitions to be made and there would be a very substantial delay. That is the problem of hybridity and the consequences are as I have described.
  Then there were the six questions, which I paraphrase. They are not in exactly the same form as they were earlier when the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, asked them, but they are generally in similar form. His first question this evening was: would some excellent hereditary Peers be excluded and would some less excellent life Peers remain? I do not think it is for me to say who I regard or who the Government regard as excellent or not. I hope not to appear to be using words inappropriately. I have said, as has the Leader of the House and the Lord Chancellor on many occasions—the Chief Whip said this earlier this evening—that of course there are many hereditary Peers who have given excellent devoted service to this House over a period of many years. There are also many hereditary Peers who have not graced us with their presence, until recently. I shall not put the goats on one side and the sheep on the other. Perhaps they divide themselves of their own volition. There are equally very many excellent life Peers.

  245
  The noble Lord spoke of the benefit of continuity and good sense. May I take a name or two at random? I do not even know, because I have not looked recently, whether the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, is in his place. No, he is not. But does he not give us the benefit of continuity and good sense, abundantly so? Does not the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon? Has he not selflessly done that over many years?
  I can continue, but the point I think is made, if it is to be made at all. The point is not whether people have served well or ill; the point is the point of principle upon which we shall never agree. It is the same as the debate between the Flat Earth Society and those who prefer Columbus. We are not going to agree. I have said before, and I make no apology for repetition, that honourable people can honourably disagree on this matter, but our objection is to the capricious donation of birth which gives a hereditary Peer the right to take pail in the workings of this second legislative Chamber.
  The second question, as I had it noted, was whether the most unsatisfactory aspect of continuing the hereditary attendance in this House was the fact that there was a preponderance of Conservative Peers. My answer to that, curiously, would be the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. No, that is not the most offensive, unsatisfactory aspect. The reason for that is as I said a moment ago. We find it unacceptable as a matter of principle that the hereditary element should continue on the basis as I described. It would not matter tuppence to me whether all hereditary Peers, or 99 per cent of them were Liberal Democrats, Labour or indeed were Communists or Welsh Nationalists; the principle is wrong. That is the answer to the second question.
  The third question was put a little more harshly this evening than when the question was put by the noble Lord earlier. It was whether the Government had abrogated the party manifesto—clearly not. We have come to an accommodation which is a compromise judged to be necessary for a brief time only. It was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that the scheme of my noble friend Lord Randall of St. Budeaux was for a transitional period. That is not so. If one looks at the terms of the amendment contained in the fourth grouping we considered this evening, even a moment's reflection shows that to be wrong. The noble Lord's amendment said,
  "Any person who, on the day on which this Act is passed, is a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage, shall remain a member of that House for their life".
  There is not much of a transition there unless one contemplates a transition going as long as 2068. That is that.
  Is the power to legislate almost entirely dependent on the power to vote? I, too, do not necessarily agree with that as a proposition. Many noble Lords are extremely influential and persuasive and are able to influence the House in a much more telling way than simply the possession that one vote implies.
  Is the interim House capable of lasting longer than five years? We have made it abundantly plain so often that that is not our intention. We set up the Royal
  246
  Commission with a tight deadline. We want the Joint Committee of both Houses and then we want Parliament to come to its own conclusion.
  Finally, I agree without any reservation with the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to the sixth question: is it our clear duty to ensure the best possible interim House? Yes. We made a compromise as an indication that that is our intention also.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, especially those who were good enough to support this amendment. I will not therefore comment on those who supported me more than to thank them.
  The noble Lord, Lord Newby, pointed out what he regarded as the technical defects of this amendment; for instance, that there would not need in the first election to be an election at all for the Labour Party or for the Liberal Benches. That is so, but the noble Lord will see that I explained that that was the position and why that came about when I moved the amendment in Committee.
  The noble Lord also said that there was an anomaly in the wording which he did not understand because, as an appointed Peer who has not yet been here for five years, as far as he could see he would not need to stand for election. I am advised by those who helped me to draft it that that is not what the amendment says. As a new appointed Peer he could sit and vote for the first five years, but after that period of time, when the next election came along, he would be able to continue to sit but would not be able to vote unless he was elected 10 do so by his peers.
  My noble friend Lord Strathclyde resists this amendment. I have to put it to him that later in our proceedings I understand he is going to move an amendment which will allow for hereditary Peers who die under the Weatherill agreement to be replaced. Perhaps his enthusiasm for this amendment or one like it will rise when he considers the question that, if all Peers are not left with speaking rights in your Lordships' House, how will your Lordships know how to vote when replacing those who may have died?
  My noble friend Lord Strathclyde then said that 240 Cross-Benchers would be too many, but, as I suggested on recommitment or possibly in Committee, he would, would he not, because he was a former Chief Whip. Be that as it may, if the apportionment between the political parties and indeed subsection (10) of this amendment are to be taken out and put in Standing Orders, as is the position for the Weatherill amendment, then my noble friend would not need to hold that against this amendment in future.
  My noble friend Lord Strathclyde was then very generous, in that he agreed with Questions 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 almost without qualification. I think he misunderstood Question 2 a little, which is whether the amendment actually prolongs the Conservative preponderance in your Lordships' House. It does not really matter whether that to the Benches opposite is the most seriously disagreeable aspect of the present composition of your

  247
  Lordships House. The fact is that the Weatherill amendment—Clause 2—prolongs that Conservative preponderance which, to many of us, is in fact the most unacceptable aspect of the present composition of your Lordships' House.
  My noble friend then invited us to live in the real world and in effect to go along with the Weatherill amendment even though it does not fit with his answer to Question 6 which I posed to him. In other words, it does not set up the best possible interim House. I have to put it to my noble friend that the real world would also include the power of the Conservative Whip, and indeed many Cross-Benchers, who do have the ability to frustrate the Government's business until they agree to the best possible interim House, which is in the interests of the nation. However, for reasons which I and I think other noble Lords find completely incomprehensible, my noble friend does not wish to exercise that power, and I would like to put on the record that I very much regret that.
  Finally, I come to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and he also, I think, is not quite clear on the meaning of the amendment. I would confirm to him that I believe it to say that newly appointed Peers could sit and vote for five years and then after that they would have to face election if they wished to go on voting. Hereditary Peers on the other hand would be allowed to sit but only to vote if they were elected. I see the noble Lord is nodding his head, which is very gracious of him, and I hope that that sets the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, at rest as well.
  When we come to the six questions, however, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is a little more difficult. I do not think he really answered Question 1, which is quite simply whether he agrees that there will be a number of excellent hereditary Peers who are excluded—I think he agrees with that—and my question really was, would there not be quite a number, a larger number indeed, of appointed Peers who are less than excellent who would remain? Obviously I shall have to see what he actually said in Hansard, but I think he ducked that with a lawyer's skill and charm.
  As to Question 2, the Weatherill amendment prolonging the Conservative preponderance, I think the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has made the same mistake as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
  Coming then to whether the Government have abrogated their manifesto or not, I would only pray in aid what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said from those Benches in one of our earlier debates, which was precisely to the effect that they have abrogated that aspect of their manifesto by allowing some hereditary Peers to stay in the interim House. I do not have the reference here but I did hear the noble and learned Lord say that and I can find it if necessary.
  The fourth question, the power to legislate being the power to vote. I will simply have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. It is of course true that the brilliant barrister can persuade the jury to deliver a verdict but it is the jury that delivers the verdict. If the very best of the hereditary and appointed
  248
  Peers in your Lordships' House were elected by their Peers to be the voting Peers, I do not think that they would be easily dissuaded from the right decision.
  Fifthly, I think the noble Lord admitted that the interim House could last for more than five years, which is simply a matter of fact.
  Finally, he was good enough to say that he agreed that it is our duty to achieve the best interim House we possibly can.
  As to the question of hybridity, I will defer to the noble Lord. I will have to have a look at it. In those circumstances, it would be better to bring this amendment back with the leave of the House because if it were to be denuded of the aspects of hybridity, I think it would, if your Lordships were to agree it, produce a very much better interim House than what Weatherill achieves. Weatherill is simply the result of a deal to which we all appear to be sticking for no very good reason and I hope that your Lordships will at least grant me the indulgence on Third Reading of looking very briefly at this amendment, denuded of any aspects of it which give rise to hybridity. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 12:
  After Clause I, insert the following new clause—

  LIFE PEERAGES FOR DISQUALIFIED PEERS
  (" . A peerage under the Life Peerages Act 1958 may be conferred on a person notwithstanding that he is disqualified under section I from attending, sitting or voting in the House of Lords, and, accordingly, section 1(4) of that Act shall not apply in relation to any such person.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, at an earlier stage of the Bill, I drew attention to what seemed to me to be a difficulty generated by the Life Peerages Act 1958. I confess to having been unpersuaded by the reply which I received on that occasion from the Government Front Bench.
  Section 1(4) of the 1958 Act provides that a life peerage—and I parenthesise slightly—shall not confer any right to attend or sit and vote in this House on any person who is disqualified therefrom by law. It seems to me almost self-evident that those hereditary Peers who are precluded by law from sitting and voting in your Lordships' House by virtue of the provisions of this Bill would be disqualified from receiving a life peerage, if subsequently they were thought appropriate for that honour.
  I must confess that I am slightly reinforced in that view by the knowledge, or so I understand, that those hereditary Peers of first creation—nine in number—who have quite publicly been offered life peerages, have been assured that their new life peerages will be conferred before this Bill becomes law. It seems that an alarm bell must have been ringing in government corridors somewhere to the effect that the difficulty to which I have referred is indeed real. Perhaps that is not so. Perhaps I am mistaken. I look forward to being told whether that is the case.
  It seems self-evident to me, as a simple, non-legal person, that the provisions of Section 1(4) of the 1958 Act generate a difficulty with regard to the conferring of life peerages upon dispossessed hereditary Peers, as we shall be as and when this Bill becomes law.
  I hope that the Government have given some thought to this matter and can produce a definitive rebuttal to the difficulty which I have perceived. If they are able to do that, I shall, quite happily, withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
  10.45 p.m.
  The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, as my name is attached to this amendment, perhaps I may also add my little potted interpretation. I ask myself a simple question: what actually happens when and if the Bill is enacted in its current form? We have to take it on advice from the Government Front Bench that all members of the hereditary peerage, excepting those who are successful in the ballot arising from Clause 2, will be barred; in other words, they will be disqualified in law from being Members of this House. That is the purpose of the Bill. That is its intent. What therefore happens, say, five years after the Bill has been enacted? It may perhaps be decided, even by the current Prime Minister, that a member of the hereditary peerage should be made a life Peer on merit. That is all well and good. However, because of Section 4 of the Life Peerages Act 1958, that singular honour, granted, I repeat, on merit, could not and would not carry with it an entitlement to a Writ of Summons to be a Member of this House. The legal barrier—the barrier in statute—of the Bill would take precedence.
  In response to this issue in Committee, the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal suggested that there is nothing in the Bill which would remove the right of hereditary Peers to be Members of the House of Lords. I simply submit that that is absurd. That is precisely what the Bill does seek to achieve. Indeed, my interpretation is that that is the Government's intent, as has been stated on numerous occasions and in many different ways by all Members of the Government Front Bench.
  In Committee, the noble Baroness indulged in some linguistic gymnastics to justify the Government's position, but no amount of semantics can disguise the simple fact that, as drafted, the Bill does seek to disqualify members of the hereditary peerage from being Members of this House. As such, it falls within the terms of Section 4 of the 1958 Act.
  I dislike harping on about this point, but given the fact that the hereditary peerage will be barred from ever again being permitted to receive a Writ of Summons to perform the task of legislative scrutiny here, the Government really ought to think very carefully as to whether the Bill on this issue is properly and adequately consistent with their own Human Rights Act. My own judgment—and I freely admit that I am not a lawyer—is that, on strict interpretation, it is not.
  I return to my familiar theme. The Bill, on matters of substantive detail, is not the creature of exquisite simplicity that the Government claim. The particular
  250
  issue that the amendment seeks to address is a prime example of the lack of clarity and uncertainty engendered by the Government's approach to the Bill. Thus the purpose of our amendment is to plug what we perceive to be a specific gap in that approach. I can but hope that the noble Lord, or whoever is due to reply on the Government Front Bench, will, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne asked, be in a position to give us a reasoned and a reasonable explanation as to why our interpretation of the situation is flawed. In the absence of that, and with the agreement of my noble friend, I hope that the rest of the House might find favour with this small attempt to deliver that quality of fairness to which members of the Government say they attach so much importance.
  Viscount Torrington: My Lords, I know that I have been very impressed, and I believe that many other noble Lords on these Benches have been, with the assiduity with which my noble friends Lord Trefgarne and Lord Northesk have dug around in the nooks and crannies of this Bill, looking under all the stones, trying to find the inconsistencies and the flaws and suggesting improvements to them. Some of those flaws undoubtedly exist. By contrast, the Government seem to be saying, "Our Bill is perfect; it is very clear. It doesn't require any changes". Indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that on numerous occasions. I think that some people call it "Pepper and Harting" the Bill; I tend to call it "Heckler and Koching" the Bill, or "Webley and Scotting" it.
  It is just possible in this particular case that my noble friends have stumbled on an important what I think lawyers call a "lacuna" in the Bill—I am not a lawyer but I believe that is the word—which may need repair. We seem to be left with the ridiculous situation that hereditary Peers, who may he perceived by the outside world as some kind of top dogs, could find themselves at the bottom of the heap. They could be the only people in this country who are not allowed to be Members of your Lordships' House. That would be an extraordinary turn of fate and I really think it should be attended to.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment, as I understand it, is to clarify the ability of the Government to confer life peerages on disqualified Peers—something that after the commencement of the Act we are led to believe that they intend to do. The Government seem to believe that Clause 1 of the House of Lords Bill will have the same effect as a disclaimer and allow a former hereditary Peer to sit as a life Peer. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne is advised by contrast—and by Mr Lofthouse—that this may not be the case.
  Section 1(4) of the Life Peerages Act 1958 states:
  "Nothing in this section shall enable any person to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords, or to sit and vote in that House, at any time when disqualified therefor by law".
  My noble friend Lord Trefgarne has raised an important point; namely, whether or not Peers excluded by the Act could legally be brought back. It is essential that this point be clarified before the Bill becomes law.

  251
  As was pointed out by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden in Committee, the concept of disqualification is known to the Bill. It is cited in Clause 3 and used as the description of the effect of the Bill. The matter is now complicated by the inclusion of the Weatherill amendment. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said in her reply that the Bill did not uniquely disqualify hereditary Peers; rather it ended a situation where they were uniquely qualified.
  But that was before Weatherill. Now some Peers will be elected and qualified, other Peers will not be elected and will be disqualified. Will they be able to receive life peerages in the light of the 1958 Act? In her reply in Committee the noble Baroness also said that the Government had offered life peerages to some Peers. She cited my noble friend Lord Aldington. But with great respect to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, that is not the point. The point is not whether the Government can give life peerages now; it is whether they will be able to do so after the Bill becomes law.
  At an earlier stage we understand that some Peers on the Labour side were advised that it might need a separate Act of Parliament to confer life peerages on hereditary Peers after the Act was passed. I think we are entitled to ask the Government what is the position. The Government have a duty to make this clear beyond any doubt before the Bill passes. But so far, in my submission, the Government have not done so.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I, of course,
  accept what the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, said about the assiduity of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl in bringing forward a large number of interesting issues both in Committee and when the Bill was recommitted. I remember at some late point in the Committee stage personally congratulating them on their ingenuity in raising a particularly complex issue. I hesitate to use the word "arcane" as that has been attacked in the course of this evening's proceedings. The point they sought to raise in Committee, which has been emphasised by some noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate today, was that they genuinely believed (and they continue to be concerned) that there is what was described as a lacuna in the Bill on this question of the ability of this Government or any government in the future being able to confer life peerages on those who have been previously hereditary Members of this House.
  Perhaps I may refer to the question about Peers of First Creation and the moves made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to seek to invite Members of your Lordships' House who are Peers of First Creation to accept life peerages in this present stage of the deliberations on the Bill. That was done precisely because those people who were asked if they wished to accept the invitation were people who it was judged by my right honourable friend would, in normal circumstances, perhaps have been given life peerages in any case. It seemed to be legitimate that they should therefore be offered this alternative to the pursuit of an election, if that is what they wished to achieve, under the new Clause 2 of the Bill, or to retire from political
  252
  life. The idea was simply to offer them an additional opportunity since they might well, in the first instance, have been offered life peerages rather than hereditary peerages when they were first invited to join your Lordships' House.
  The noble Earl made much of the overall point of the Bill and, what he called the disbarring from the House of members of the hereditary peerage. He suggested that that was, as it were, a permanent gate coming down on their membership of the House. The point is that they were only disbarred, to use his expression, from membership of your Lordships' House by virtue of the hereditary peerage. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that, provided they are qualified in other respects—I will return to the question of disqualification later in my response—they are in any other way prevented from becoming Members of your Lordships' House as life Peers; they are simply and categorically disbarred from membership by virtue of their hereditary peerage.
  We have considered the various points made very cogently by noble Lords in our previous debate and we considered this question before the Bill was brought before your Lordships. As I hope I have explained, that is the reason why some Peers of First Creation were offered life peerages at an earlier moment. We seriously consider that the amendment is unnecessary; we seriously assert—we have of course had our own legal and constitutional advice on this matter—that all hereditary Peers will be eligible to receive life peerages. We have consistently envisaged that Members of your Lordships' House who sit now by virtue of their hereditary peerage may indeed become those who are most obviously eligible to become life Peers in some future incarnation. We checked that there were no difficulties raised by this under the Life Peerages Act. It was intended to ensure that the usual disqualifications for membership which apply to life Peers—being an alien, a minor or a bankrupt—continue to apply to life Peers. As the present Bill does not prevent hereditary Peers from being Members of the House—but, I repeat, only being a Member of the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage—there is no disqualification on hereditary Peers which needs to be ousted or, to use the noble Earl's expression, barred.
  We have already in the course of the day's proceedings on the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, revisited the question of the significance of the expression "by virtue of'. As my noble friend Lord Williams said in responding to the noble Earl, its main attraction is the breadth which it encompasses. In this case there is another significance to it; if you like, a narrowing of the scope. The Bill does not say that no one should be a Member of the House of Lords if he holds a hereditary peerage. That would indeed be a disqualification for membership. But that is not the effect of the Bill.
  The Bill is not about disqualification from membership but about barring one of the routes to membership. The route to membership alone of holding a hereditary peerage will of course no longer exist after the Bill comes into force. But everyone still has the same rights as before to seek the remaining routes to

  253
  membership of your Lordships' House. For example, in the same way that after the Bill is passed a hereditary Peer who is also a Bishop in the Church of England will be entitled to take his seat on the Bishops' Bench if he holds one of the qualifying dioceses, so a hereditary Peer who is made a life Peer will be able to rejoin your Lordships. As I have explained before—the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, seemed to find this an unhelpful expression; to me it seems reasonably clear—they will not pass from being uniquely qualified to being uniquely disqualified.
  The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, also referred to the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, in our earlier debate and he did indeed point out that the Bill recognises at another point the concept of disqualification, and in its proper place indeed it does. Peers are presently disqualified from being Members of the House of Commons. It is an absolute bar. The Bill removes it where the disqualification is by virtue of the hereditary peerage. By virtue of the hereditary peerage, that disqualification from membership of the House of Commons is removed. But if the disqualification were accompanied by the fact that the Peer in question was a minor or an undischarged bankrupt, the Bill would not remove those disqualifications.
  I hope that noble Lord will not believe, as someone said in the course of our short debate, that that is playing with words. It does explain matters with some clarity to me, and I am not a lawyer. I think that it does suggest the difference between the disqualification in the appropriate place and the barring of one route to membership of your Lordships' House which does not cut off all other routes.
  A Peer who was a hereditary Peer, a bankrupt, an alien or a minor would therefore remain disqualified in relation to the House of Commons, and that is also the effect of the Bill before us read alongside Section 1(4) of the 1958 Act in relation to this House. The disqualifications that apply to membership of the House of Lords also remain. They are consistent with those that remain to disqualify anyone from being a Member of the House of Commons, but they do not include anything arising from this Bill.
  I hope your Lordships will feel that that is an understanding that I have attempted to put in the simple language I myself understand. It is slightly, I agree, a question of double negatives, as I said in answer to the previous amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. But I also explained previously that the present amendment appears to override the disqualifications that I have just described, which do properly apply to hereditary Peers becoming life Peers, both now and in the future. It would therefore, to use the expression that I find helpful but the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, perhaps does not, continue to make hereditary Peers uniquely qualified. A bankrupt hereditary Peer could become a life Peer where a bankrupt commoner could not. The noble Lord's accompanying amendment, Amendment No. 82—the amendment to the Long Title—illustrates that.
  254
  I hope that I have made a little clearer, as I obviously failed to do when we discussed this point in Committee, the difference between disqualification, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, describes it, and what the effect of the Bill will be. I can only reiterate simply that there is no political intention to prevent hereditary Peers being eligible to become life Peers and no legal bar in this Bill.
  The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may clarify one point. I agree with her that there is no absolutist doctrine about disqualification here. However, the disqualification by virtue of a hereditary peerage is nonetheless a disqualification in law. Therefore, the terms of Section 4 of the 1958 Act, under my interpretation, carry force because they include the phrase "disqualified therefore by law". Does she not accept that there is an element of symmetry which needs to be addressed?
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, it is my legal advice that that is not the case and that the statute, in removing the disqualification for membership, for example, of the House of Commons, except in those instances of being a minor or a bankrupt, is different from that of this Bill, which requires that membership of your Lordships' House should not continue by virtue of a hereditary peerage. But I am advised that that does not override the Life Peerages Act, which enables anyone not disqualified by those other, more limited concepts from becoming a Member of this House. It simply bars one route to membership by virtue of a hereditary peerage, but no others except those limited disqualifications.
  The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may quickly respond. There remains a fundamental point of principle. It is apparent that there remains a degree of uncertainty on this issue—
  Noble Lords: Order!
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will explain. Is he intervening to ask the noble Baroness a question, or is he making another speech?
  The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I was simply intervening to ask another question on the back of what the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal had said. It is simply this. Does she not accept that her reply indicates that uncertainty remains around this issue?
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: No, my Lords. I can only apologise to the noble Earl if he finds confusing my simple explanation using non-legal terms. I had hoped that by putting it in the way that I understand the points, I had made it as clear as I could. believe those points to be reinforced by the legal position. I have no hesitation in suggesting to the noble Earl that that is the correct interpretation.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I readily accept that the Government have a respectable point of view on

  255
  this matter, which the noble Baroness has enunciated. I accept that it is not their intention to exclude hereditary Peers from the possibility of receiving a life peerage as and when the Bill becomes law, if it does. But the fact remains that there is some doubt about the matter. The noble Baroness has repeatedly asserted that she believes that that is not the case, but she has not persuaded us that there is not some doubt about the matter.
  It is not right to pass legislation where there is doubt, which is therefore open to challenge as and when it becomes law, with all the uncertainty surrounding that. We ought to put this matter right. I commend the amendment to the House.
  11.7 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 110.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Lyell, L.

  Berners, B.

  Mancroft, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Clinton, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Northbrook, L. [Teller.]

  Courtown, E.

  Northesk, E.

  Cross, V.

  Norton, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Devon, E.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Romney, E.

  Falmouth, V.

  Sempill, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Swansea, L.

  Gray, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  Trefgarne, L. [Teller.]

  Henley, L.

  Trenchard, V.

  Hooper, B.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Kingsland, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Addington, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Ahmed, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Alli, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Amos, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Attenborough, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Bach, L.

  David, B.

  Berkeley, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Blease, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

  Bledisloe, V.

  Desai, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Brightman, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Eatwell, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Gilbert, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Glanusk, L.

  Montague of Oxford, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Newby, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Patel, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Grantchester, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Haskel, L.

  Rea, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Richard, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Russell, E.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

  Sandberg, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal]

  Sewel, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Simon, V.

  Kennet, L.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

  Thornton, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  McNair, L.

  Warner, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Watson of Invergowrie, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Winston, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  11.16 p.m.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 13:
  After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
  RIGHTS OF DISQUALIFIED PEERS
  (" . Lords Temporal who are disqualified from attending, sitting and voting in the House of Lords by virtue of this Act—

  (a) shall not be entitled to receive writs of summons to attend any future Parliament; but

  (b) shall nevertheless be entitled to enter the Palace of Westminster and use the facilities of the Palace as if they were not so disqualified.")

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 45 and 49 which stand in my name, and in the name of my noble friend Lord Northesk.
  The new clause makes it clear that in future disqualified Peers will not be entitled to receive Writs to attend Parliament. Again, this is intended to clarify what I believe to be the intentions of the Government enshrined in the Bill. The amendment provides that those who are nonetheless not entitled to receive Writs should be entitled to use the facilities of the Palace of Westminster as has been their right ever since the Palace was built originally, all those hundreds of years ago.
  It is an elementary courtesy to those hereditary Peers who have served with such distinction, as Ministers have readily recognised, over many years, not to say centuries if we go back to our predecessors.
  I hope that the Government agree that this will be a small, innocent, but welcome gesture in an attempt perhaps to smooth the passage of hereditary Peers away from the voting facilities of this House of Parliament. I hope that your Lordships will agree to it. I beg to move.
  Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to have a misconception as to why the facilities are provided. They are not provided in order to have an agreeable club here, but because it is a workplace. In the same way in any workplace canteen facilities are provided because one has to be at the workplace and work unreasonable hours. Today is a good example of that: The canteen facilities are provided so that we can be here at all times as our work requires. It seems to me that the noble Lord is entirely wrong about why these facilities are provided and for that reason I cannot support his amendment.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am deeply tempted to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, but I shall not do so. I was concerned because my noble friend Lord Trefgarne was flustered when he had to move his amendment—and understandably so because he was tied up with the previous Division. So flustered was he that he said he was speaking to Amendment No. 49 which was in his name. I should point out to your Lordships that it is in my name, and, with the leave of the House, I wish to speak to that amendment when we reach it and not tonight.
  Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. Indeed, this is a workplace, but surely those who are not to be allowed to vote and speak still have brains and something to contribute. Those noble Lords still left could gain a great deal of insight into all kinds of areas in life. I believe that the noble Lord's amendment has a great deal to offer on its own merits, never mind in the interests of the bar profits, which would suffer enormously!
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may intervene to correct what I said earlier. I had understood that my amendment was grouped with Amendments Nos. 45 and 49. However, as my noble friend Lord Lauderdale is not in his place and my noble friend Lord Ferrers has made it clear that he does not want to speak at this point, I withdraw that suggestion and apologise to your Lordships. My remarks therefore address only Amendment No. 13.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for whom I have the greatest respect, that I thought his intervention was uncharacteristically insensitive. The Members of another place, when they retire, have rights to facilities there—
  Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to correct the noble Lord on a point of fact, but anyone who has been a Member of the House of Commons and ceases to be so does not have the right to use the refreshment facilities of that House. The only right one has is to go
  258
  into the Lobby of the House of Commons, which does not fulfil any of the digestive needs of former Members. I am afraid that the noble Lord is wrong.
  Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I went to the trouble of obtaining the regulation: as they affect former Members of the House of Commons who are not Members of this House. It may be of assistance to the House if I read from them. Former Members of the House of Commons may be admitted via St. Stephen's Lobby—that is, the public entrance and not the Members' entrance; they must wear a photo—pass and they are entitled to eat only in the Terrace Cafeteria and to use the Strangers' Bar. On Monday lunch-times only are they allowed to dine in the Members' Dining Room.
  In addition, the regulations state what former Members are not entitled to do. They relate to Members who have performed more than 15 years' service. If they have performed fewer than 15 years' service, they have no entitlements at all. They are not allowed to use any other facilities of the Palace; they are not allowed to entertain guests; they are not allowed to show guests the Line of Route; they are not allowed to use any of the car parks; and they are not allowed to cash cheques in the House's Post Office. So there are only limited facilities for long-standing Members of another place who have since left.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, purely for information, what about the Libraries?
  Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the regulations are clear that former Members of the other place have no rights to use the Libraries.
  Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, is not the issue somewhat more fundamental? This place exists for the purpose of legislating; for revising and scrutinising legislation. It is not a social club. Therefore, or the face of the Bill it would be nonsense to mention the provision of extraneous facilities for anyone. If someone wants a facility over and above what is being provided for in the Bill, that should arise as a result of negotiation and discussion outside the Chamber. One cannot possibly expect this side of the House to place this proposal on the face of the Bill because it would be an absolote nonsense.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I find fascinating the strength of feeling that this matter seems to have aroused on the other side of the House——
  A Noble Lord: It was a correction.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, with great respect, it was not just a correction. I do not accept that because I think that Members of another place who leave that other place, at least in certain circumstances have certain rights in another place. Members of another place who come to your Lordships' House have rights in another place. So to exclude members of your Lordships' House from rights in your Lordships' House altogether would

  259
  be wholly inconsistent with the treatment of Members of another place who cease to be Members of another place.
  I understood that the purpose of the Bill was to deal with the political rights of hereditary Peers, not other rights which seem to me, with great respect to Members on the other side of your Lordships' House, to fall into an entirely different category. What political harm can former Members of your Lordships' House do either to your Lordships' House or elsewhere by coming to your Lordships' House and enjoying its non-political facilities? I do not understand that argument.
  The Opposition Front Bench does not advocate that this matter appears on the face of the Bill. To that extent, it agrees with the Government. However, it thinks that it should be dealt with in the Committee for Privileges. Indeed, we believe it would be both prudent and statesmanlike to address this issue now.
  The presence of the Bishops in your Lordships' House did not prevent your Lordships from conferring rights on Bishops who retire. Your Lordships should not be deterred from doing the same for those hereditary Peers who sadly may, as a consequence of the passage of the Bill, have to leave your Lordships' House.
  I hope that we can come together as a House to do that. I hope that this will not be a matter of continuing dispute. It would be inconceivable to think that at the beginning of the next Session the Doorkeepers would be instructed to exclude from your Lordships' premises my noble friend Lord Carrington; the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd; my noble friend Lord Denham; or the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. Does that really reflect the good will of the House?
  If Members of your Lordships' House on the Government Benches really believe that these former great men should be excluded, I really will believe that the Government are possessed of a tumbrel mentality.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we have considered these issues several times in your Lordships' House during the passage of the Bill. I recall the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, stating eloquently on another amendment similar to this that he would much prefer to go to White's. I think that probably reflects the opinion of many in this House. As I have said, we have debated this on many occasions. There is really nothing new to say in response. Once again, I draw the attention of the House to what is stated in the Companion in reference to proceedings on Report; namely, that arguments fully deployed in a Committee of the whole House should not be repeated at length on Report. Following, as I often do, my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, I intend to abide very strictly to the letter of the law on this amendment.
  The questions to which the amendment refers are matters for the House to determine. As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland stated, the Front Bench opposite does not intend that they should be placed on the face of the Bill. They are not matters for government or Parliament as a whole to dictate in legislation.
  260
  Reference has been made to the arrangements in another place and to the arrangements made in your Lordships' House for the Bishops. Those are not laid down in statute but in arrangements made by the House: by your Lordships' House in the case of the Bishops and, in the case of the very limited rights described by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, by the House authorities in another place in relation to senior ex-Members of the Commons. I would point out that the present amendment appears not only to confer some types of rights on former Members of this House, but also on those who have never been Members of it. I wonder whether that is really what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, had in mind.
  As I reminded the House in previous discussions about this and as has been reinforced by my noble friend Lord Haskel tonight, this place is not a club. I drew attention at an early stage in Committee, and shall take a moment to extend it slightly this evening, to the remarks of Lord Salisbury in the debate on the Life Peerages Act 40 years ago. I had not realised the context of that until I read Hansard. That is why I repeat it and admit that it is a form of self-indulgence. He made his remarks about this House not being a club in the context of noble Lords not being able to continue the exclusion of women as life Peers. He said:
  "This House is not a club; it is a place of legislation, and for women as well as for men".—[Official Report, 17/12/57; col. 1231.]
  I rest my case.
  11.30 p.m.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that I had no intention in my amendment of treating those hereditary Peers who are also ladies any differently from those of us who are men.
  I too would be happy if this matter had any prospect of resolution in the relevant committee. I would be even happier if the Government would say that they will support arrangements being made by the relevant committee. Those of us who remember the White Paper and the various documents issued by the Government in connection with this matter formed the view—rightly or wrongly—that the Government were not in favour of any sort of continuing rights for those hereditary Peers, some of whom have served in this House for a great many years, who are suddenly excluded and cast out as the Bill proposes.
  That said, I recognise that there is another forum in which this matter can be discussed; namely, the relevant committee. I hope that it will be, and soon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 [Exception from section 1]:
  Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
  ("() Standing Orders of the House shall provide that in any election held to determine who is a person to be excepted from section 1, the electorate shall consist of all peers.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 14 differs from the amendment I tabled at recommittal only in that it removes the necessity for any qualificatory

  261
  hurdle for membership of the electoral college. Heavyweight Peers zeroed in on the weaknesses that are inherent in any hurdle requirement. I listened to those arguments and fully accepted them. However, for the avoidance of doubt, this amendment does not seek to interfere with the principle of the Weatherill amendment—that there should be one system of election by which all parties shall elect the hereditary Peers.
  This simple amendment proposes that all Members of your Lordships' House shall be eligible to vote for the 90 excepted Peers in Clause 1 of the Bill. After all, as we have heard on several occasions this is a House of equals. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that at recommittal and the noble Baroness. Lady Gould of Potternewton, repeated it today. Of course, that is right. By definition, a House of Peers is indeed a House of equals. Why should some Peers be more or less equal than others? There is no segregation in this House as far as I am aware. There are no Benches marked, "For the use of life Peers only"; there are no gin bottles marked, "For the use of hereditary Peers only". Why should ballot boxes be marked, "For the use of hereditary Peers only"?
  At recommittal, my noble friend Lord Cranborne gently accused my amendment of being élitist. I cannot see how broadening the electoral college can possibly be considered élitist; rather the contrary. If élitism carries any connotation of exclusivity, it is the present electoral arrangements that are élitist in excluding life Peers from a vote in this matter.
  I also have some difficulty with the shorthand that my noble friend used for the club argument, that no assembly should have the right to select its own members. The element of "clubism" is inherent in the electoral arrangement as set out in the draft Standing Orders. If the timetable in the draft Standing Orders is anything to go by, it seems perfectly possible that those Peers who are to be electing the 90 accepted Peers will still be Members of your Lordship's House, as will the Peers for which they are voting, unless of course the Bill has received Royal Assent by the time that election takes place, and that is about as unlikely as England winning a cricket match.
  There will still be this element of Members electing Members, so on those grounds I cannot accept the strictures of my noble friend Lord Cranborne on my amendment. My noble friend Lord Kingsland said from the Front Bench on recommittal that he would be mercifully, or perhaps it was mercilessly, brief—telegraphic. He said that it is wrong in principle to have an election in which one cannot be a candidate; that is, it is wrong for life Peers to vote for the 90 accepted Peers. Life Peers do not need to be candidates in an election for this House because they are already Members. I hope that my noble friend Lord Kingsland will take that on board.
  The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in answering my earlier amendment on recommittal, concentrated mainly on the numbers. I accept the fact that there is no real case for any number qualificatory hurdle. All he had to say about the principle behind my amendment is that it has been consistently made clear
  262
  that the election of the 75 will be of hereditaries, by hereditaries, for hereditaries. It has not been made clear. It has been made opaque. There is nothing in the Bill about who should constitute the electoral college. There are understandings, nods and winks, agreements in smoke filled rooms. Earlier this evening, I was speaking with a Peer from the Opposition who said how much he was looking forward to voting for his hereditaries in the election. I had to disabuse him; I told him that he would not be able to vote for his hereditary Peers. He was extremely disappointed. My amendment will allow him and every other Peer in every other part of the House to vote for their hereditaries. It is better that the whole House, and not just a part of it, should have a voice in who has seats in this House.
  I remind noble Lords that, after all, we are disposing of seats in Parliament. That is the purpose of this determinedly non-elitist amendment. I do not propose to divide the House this evening, but hope that the noble Lords who may support the idea behind the amendment will perhaps break cover to support it. I beg to move.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, made plain, this amendment differs from and is substantially better than the previous amendment which he moved in Committee because it concentrates solely on the question of who is to be the electorate. It does not muddle the issue or dirty the waters by seeking also to introduce a minimum attendance requirement. In principle, I strongly support the noble Lord's thesis that the electorate for the election under Clause 2 must include the life Peers. However, I remain of the view, which I expressed in Committee, as did many others, that this is not the right time to decide that matter. It must be decided upon when the report of the Procedure Committee comes before the House, when the arguments can be advanced in full in the light of that report.
  Notwithstanding that, I would like to say a few words on why I feel so strongly that the electorate should include all the life Peers and to deal with a few of the points raised by the opponents of that thesis in Committee.
  First, under Clause 2, the only way in which we can achieve an electorate which is both informed as to the quality of the people being voted for and disinterested is to have the votes of the life Peers. If one looks at the statistics, most of the hereditary Peers who have attended sufficiently frequently to know who is worth having will themselves be candidates—:not all of them but certainly the great majority of them. Therefore, inevitably there must be a temptation for those persons either to enter into electoral pacts with their colleagues—you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours—or to vote in a way which, even subconsciously, is affected by their candidature. If only the hereditary Peers can vote, there will be very few hereditary Peers who are not standing for election and who have attended the House sufficiently regularly in recent years to know the qualities of those for whom they are voting.
  Secondly, I suggest that it is wrong in principle to say that those 75 Peers are to be representatives of the hereditary peerage in the sense that they are delegates

  263
  sent by the hereditary Peers to forward the interests, whatever they may be, of the hereditary Peers. Those persons should be, and must be seen to be, which is very important, those who can contribute most to the House selected by those who know whether or not they can make that contribution.
  Also, the concept advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and others that they are to be representative Peers is constitutionally fundamentally unsound. Clause 3 gives all those who are not continuing Members of the House the right to vote in and stand for elections to the House of Commons. That, which is a basic provision of the Bill, demonstrates that those persons cannot also have representatives in this House because it is a fundamental constitutional principle that no one can vote for representation in both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, whatever the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, may have thought, his idea that those are to be representative Peers is a fundamental constitutional anomaly. Standing Orders which provided that only hereditary Peers could vote while they can also vote in and stand for elections to the Commons would be a constitutional anomaly.
  That also deals with the alleged analogy with the Scottish system. In Committee it was suggested that the matter should be dealt with in the same way as it was dealt with in Scotland. But Clause 3 does not provide that. The Scottish Peers who could vote for their representatives were all, whether or not they were themselves elected, debarred from standing for the House of Commons or voting in any parliamentary elections. That was the consequence of their right to vote for representatives here. Clause 3 makes it plain that Clause 2 Peers are not representatives and any principle which continues on a representative basis would be in direct conflict with Clause 3.
  Finally, perhaps I may mention to dismiss it, as did the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, the club point. It seems to me an argument which only the ingenuity of a Cecil could produce to say that it is a club system if one allows all the members to vote, but if only some are allowed to vote that is not a club. Let us just think of how it will look to the outside world: all the old boys scratching each other's back, ringing each other on the telephone and saying, "I was at school with him. Let's have him". The people who can elect on merit and can be seen to elect on merit are the life Peers. When the matter comes before the House in relation to the report of the Procedure Committee, I hope that those arguments will commend themselves to the House.
  11.45 p.m.
  Lord Desai: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the noble Lord's amendment. I think it makes a lot of sense. I have always thought that if the 15 Committee chairmen could be elected by all of us, so could the other 75. I see no reason why not. Indeed, I would even go as far as saying that all of us should vote for all of them, with the stricture that the numbers—for example, two for Labour, three for the Liberals, and so on—should be kept. We should all be invited to vote for 43 Conservatives or two Liberal
  264
  Democrats. Why not? As of last Thursday, we are now used to a large ballot paper. Indeed, we could easily do that.
  The principle is that, in a sense, we always say that there are no party divisions here—
  A noble Lord: Any what?
  Lord Desai: I said, no party divisions. We all sort of pretend that we do not really believe in parties, Whips, and so on. We all know about each other's work and, therefore, we ought to be allowed to vote. That is all I wanted to say.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke. I think it all comes back to how the original compromise was reached. I suspect that the idea of it was modelled on the Scottish system and that, in a sense, must have been what gave people the notion that it would be possible to retain some Members in your Lordships' House who are hereditary Peers. I personally strongly support the Weatherill amendment in its outcome form.
  On the other hand, I think that the legitimacy of those Peers, if they are elected only by other hereditary Peers, will be limited. They would, in a sense, lose some credibility. I should much prefer them to be seen, if you like, as concessionary Peers rather than as representative Peers. What we have to do is to wait and see whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might be prepared to reveal the way in which this all emerged during the discussions that he had with my noble friend Lord Cranborne when this, in my opinion, extremely good compromise was reached. Even if it was not part of the original negotiations, there is a strong case for extending the franchise, if only to give more credibility to the outside world for the compromise itself.
  Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I wonder whether we are not making somewhat of a mystery out of this compromise. We should bear in mind that the Government put forward a Bill based on their manifesto commitment and then, for very pragmatic political reasons, accepted a compromise that was put forward in order to retain a certain number of hereditary Peers. That was based on a formula which will enable the Oppostion to have so many, the Government to have so many and, indeed, the Liberal Democrats and the Cross-Benchers to have so many.
  We are making a lot of heavy weather about the formula. Once this compromise was accepted, the fact remains that each of the bodies concerned was entitled to elect its own representative numbers in order to keep a measure of stability through the transitional period of this House. We are going well overboard if we try to elaborate on the issue and make something out of it which does not really exist. Therefore, I think that this amendment should be withdrawn.
  The Earl of Errol: My Lords, I do not mind at all who the electorate is for the first set of Peers who stay here. I think that there are logical arguments on both

  265
  Sides. However, it would concern me if it were used as a precedent, because I feel that this transitional Chamber could well last longer than many people hope. If we have to start having an electoral system for electing hereditaries in, say, 20 years' time, it would worry me if the notion that life Peers—appointed and nominated Peers—should elect the hereditaries was used as a precedent. Again, we would have the influence of the nominating authority coming in indirectly. That would be very dangerous because they would probably pick the most amenable and the quietest hereditary Peers so that they would not stir things up. The whole purpose of leaving hereditary Peers here is to leave a difficult rump of people who will ensure that there is some independence in Parliament.
  Lord Newby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for introducing this amendment. Like every other issue that we have debated today, this is something that we have discussed at some length before, albeit on the basis of a slightly different amendment. I am not sure that these would be exactly the words that we would have put in an amendment on the point, but I find the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, and those advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in terms of ensuring that we get the best people judged by the largest number of their peers remaining under the Weatherill amendment, to be compelling.
  Equally, we on these Benches are not of the view that the concept of representative hereditaries is one that we would wish to support. That is exactly the debate that we had in Committee. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained then that, under the Weatherill compromise, the concept of representative hereditary Peers had been accepted by the Government. We found that to be a depressing concept and we disagreed with the principle that lies behind it. We obviously accept that this is a matter not to be determined primarily at this stage and on the face of the Bill. Indeed, it is something which the Procedure Committee will want to consider.
  However, when the Procedure Committee considers the matter, I hope the Government will adopt a rather more flexible attitude. If the Liberal Democrats, who will have three Members under the Weatherill proposals, feel, as a group, that we would like all of us to elect that number, it seems to me to be unacceptable that we should be told that we cannot do so. There should be scope for us to decide how we elect our three. If the Conservatives believe that their number, how ever many it is, should be elected just by the hereditaries, it seems to us to be entirely reasonable that that should be done. As I say, we will find it unacceptable and unnecessarily prescriptive if the Government seek to impose on us a method of electing our three which we believe to be less satisfactory than another method. When the noble and learned Lord replies, I hope that he will be able to be rather more flexible in the attitude that he adopts towards this issue.
  Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment although the Procedure Committee is
  266
  soon to discuss this issue. It appears not just logical but also sensible that the electorate should, comprise both hereditary and life Peers. Clearly the objective of this Bill is to improve the efficacy of your Lordships' House and the objective of the Weatherill amendment was to select—I stress the word "select"—those hereditary Peers who will make the most valuable contribution to the work of your Lordships' House in the interim phase.
  I entirely agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe that the Weatherill amendment does not seek to elect hereditary Peers to represent hereditaries. I do not intend to rehearse the many arguments that I am sure will be discussed once the report of the Procedure Committee is debated in your Lordships' House on Third Reading. However, my final point concerns public perception. Surely not just the public but also the Members in the other place—when this Bill is referred back to the other place—would consider it farcical if the hereditary Peers were to be elected purely by hereditaries. For this reason, I believe that the amendment enhances the logic of the Weatherill amendment and deserves the Government's support.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I too support this amendment because, as other noble Lords have said, if all Peers are to elect those who will be staying, that must make for a more knowledgeable electorate and therefore for better qualified Peers. It seems to me that the trouble with the Weatherill/Cranborne amendment—with or without the somewhat inaccurate allusions of my noble friend Lord Cranborne to White's Club—is that many Peers will be able to vote who hardly ever come here and cannot know who they are voting for. By the same token, I should have thought that some minimum attendance requirement for the electorate would be a good thing because, once again, it would make for a more knowledgeable electorate and therefore far a better quality of Peer to be elected, which I am sure is what we all seek to achieve. As I say, I support the amendment.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, an interesting argument is being put forward that hereditary Peers cannot possibly be trusted to select a number of their own to represent them in Parliament. That may be true—but if it is true, then let us say it. Let us say that only the life Peers can give this system any credibility. I find that mildly offensive. I find the thought that my future is to be decided by the life Peers rather odd; I object to it. I should much rather put my future in the hands of my fellow hereditary Peers.
  There is an argument that the hereditary Peers will get together; that there will be a "chums' pact"; that they will say "I was at school with you; therefore will you vote for me?" From my experience of people with whom I was at school—I am glad to say that there is no one in the House with whom I was at school—that may be a very negative argument to use. I sense no evidence to suggest that the hereditary peerage is unable to select a number of themselves to represent them in Parliament.

  267
  The argument that they will be delegates is absurd. The idea that an elected hereditary Peer will be a delegate of anybody is laughable. Peers are here on their own honour and merits and represent no one. That should continue.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Lord has just said that he wishes to be chosen to represent the other hereditary Peers. Apparently he prefers to be selected by people who have never seen him perform rather than by the life Peers who have seen him perform. Now, a second later, he says that they would not be representing anyone. He cannot have his cake and eat it. If they are there to represent the other Peers, so be it; but then they are to represent someone. If they are not to represent anyone, they cannot be representative Peers.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I was making the point about being a delegate. I understand that, under the noble Lord's terms, I would be elected by a group of people who would expect me to behave in a particular way. That is my understanding of the point that he was making. I refute that and reject it utterly. Any Peer who is elected by anyone else to come to this House is here to represent himself and to defend the decisions that he takes. The noble Lord's argument about being a delegate must equally be true whether one is elected by a group of hereditary Peers or by the whole House. I reject it as an argument which has no force.
  However, the argument that there needs to be some consequential amendments to Clause 3 has some force. Perhaps I may take the opportunity to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor if he can say when the consequential amendments to Clause 3 will be forthcoming, to make up for the deficiency quite correctly pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I hope that we shall have plenty of time to examine them.
  Something else is going on here—and I suspect that this is the real motive behind the amendments. It is a motive that I wholly understand; I have heard it many times. I have not heard it this evening, but I have heard it many times in private. The motive is this. "I am a hereditary Peer. I spend a lot of time in this House; I put in a lot of work. My friends are not hereditary Peers; they are life Peers. I wish to continue in this House. Therefore I would much rather that my future were decided by the life Peers than by the hereditary Peers".
  We need to have a little more confidence if we are to go into this brave new world. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, was entirely correct that we should not use this to set a precedent for the future if by some small chance this stage is to continue for some time. Since I believe that there should be a proper and fundamental reform of the House, if it is seen that there is something faintly illegitimate—I do not believe there is—in the hereditary Peers continuing to select a certain number of themselves to represent them in the House of Lords, then perhaps that may hasten stage two, which will be in the interests of Parliament and the people of this country.
  268
  I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that there should not be uniformity and I find it interesting that the Liberal Democrats suggest that there should not be an election—perhaps he did suggest that there should be an election but not just an election of the hereditary Peers.
  I have another way. We should ask the Chief Whips and the Convenor to select who they think would be right. That would be a good alternative, except that I have suddenly remembered that I am no longer the Chief Whip, so perhaps the leaders of all the parties who should do it!
  I finish where I started. We should have more confidence in ourselves. The hereditary Peers need to get a grip on themselves. They should stick to a system which has been tried and tested in Scotland and in Ireland when the English and the UK Peers did not have a say in those elections.
  Midnight
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have no doubt that when the so-called "Weatherill amendment" was being discussed behind the scenes before it became public knowledge, it was intended that the Peers so selected would be representatives—or however one may describe it—of the hereditary peerage as a whole. That was right and it was on that basis that I was persuaded to agree to the Weatherill amendment; namely, that we hereditary Peers would choose 75 of our own number to represent us here in this House. I would be very concerned if the Bill were to be changed so that my original perception was wrong and the 92 would be elected by a much wider electorate, including large numbers of life Peers. That was not the basis on which I was persuaded to agree to the Weatherill amendment. I therefore hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
  The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I believe that I made the Government's position on this matter perfectly clear when we debated this very same issue in Committee. The noble Lord has now removed his earlier minimum attendance qualification for Members of the House to be eligible to vote for excepted Peers. But the key question remains the same: should life Peers be allowed to vote in the Weatherill elections?
  I can do no more than repeat what I said in Committee when I was describing the agreement that has been made. It has consistently been made clear—I repeat that to the noble Lord: I do not know how often I need to say it for him to hear it—that the elections for the 75 within the party and other groups will be of hereditaries, by hereditaries and for hereditaries. As has been said many times, the election of the 15 is a different matter as they are to be elected to stand ready to serve the whole House as office holders. It is therefore wholly logical that all Members of the House should be allowed a say in choosing them.
  The amendment also conflicts with the Weatherill proposal because it allows every Member of the House to vote for each individual excepted Peer so that there would be no distinctive electorates, according to party

  269
  or Cross-Bench affiliation, to choose the allotted number of excepted Peers in each of the four main groupings. As the amendment acknowledges, this is not a matter for the face of the Bill but for Standing Orders; and for the reasons given, we may have to debate this further.
  I can only repeat that the relevant electorates as envisaged under the terms of the agreement underlying the Weatherill amendment are provided for in the Standing Order as presently drafted. To include this provision on the face of the Bill would be a clear breach of that agreement. For my part, and for the Government's, we intend to honour the agreement. We therefore cannot accept this amendment.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, he says that it has consistently been made clear that the election is to be by hereditaries and for hereditaries. By whom has it consistently been made so clear, and when, and where?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, on every occasion when this matter has previously been considered in this House, it has been made clear both by myself and, as I recall, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. All that we are doing is reporting the terms of an agreement. None of the parties to the agreement is disputing it. I do not see how the noble Viscount can dispute it.
  Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It seems that there is interest in this proposal. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I obviously did not make myself clear on a couple of points. Perhaps I may elucidate them now.
  First, I attempted to say that my amendment did not seek to overturn the party arrangements that were agreed so that each party and the Cross-Benchers would continue to elect their own Peers as was set out in the Weatherill amendment. It is simply that I believe it is much better that they should be elected by all Peers, not simply by hereditary Peers.
  I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, for his intervention. It is also abundantly clear that there are widely differing views on this matter. We have heard that from all sides of the House—from the noble and learned Lord and from Members on his own Benches, from the Liberal Democrats, from my own side, and from the Cross-Benches. So there may be abundant clarity between certain parties in the House, but it is by no means uniform. It is a perfectly valid point to debate. I hope that the Procedure Committee will take the points that have been made during the course of the debate and will consider them.
  I was also surprised by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. He seemed determined to misunderstand what I said. There was absolutely no question that hereditary Peers should be elected only by life Peers. I made it perfectly clear that they should be elected by the whole House. That would be an improvement. The noble Lord did not seem to understand that and purposely put words into my mouth that I did not utter.
  270
  My point was accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and I am grateful for that. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, simply said, "Let's leave well enough alone. We do not want to fiddle with it". However, I am rather surprised, in view of the fact that he would have the opportunity to vote for his own hereditaries and is not going to take the chance. Of course, that is his choice.
  As I said, I do not intend to press this matter to a Division. I am glad to have had the opportunity to hear the discussions. They have been valuable. I remain disappointed with the reactions of my own Front Bench. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
  Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret had given notice of his intention to move manuscript Amendment No 16A:
  Page 1, line 9, leave out ("90") and insert ("165")
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I ask forgiveness of the House and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as I recognise that to table manuscript amendments hurriedly on matters of this nature can be rather irritating and that it does not give the Government much of a chance to think about them. Perhaps I may say in self-defence that I noted from the Marshalled List that I received at home in the North of England that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, was new, or had been altered. I felt that there was a need to press him on the figures that he arrived at. Following the Weatherill amendment, the amendment does not seem to have been tabled at Committee stage. As a result of that, Amendment No. 20 et al rather drives this amendment as it presently stands. I believe that it would be impolite and discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, to pre-empt the substance of his remarks. With the leave of the House, I should like first to listen to what he has to say and then speak to Amendment No. 20, which drives Amendment No. 16. If that is accepted, at this stage I shall not move Amendment No. 16A.
  [Manuscript Amendment No. 16A not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, for the fact that his name is spelt wrongly in the Marshalled List.
  The Earl of Erroll The Earl of Erroll moved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 1, line 10, after ("Marshal") insert ("of England")
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that apology. I note that Hansard also mis-spelt my name at the time that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, made reference to me when I was unable to attend on re-commitment.
  Amendment No. 18 is just a drafting amendment and in many ways is not a big matter. I am very concerned that an Act of Parliament may come into being that does not accord the proper title and dignity to two of England's most respected offices of state. In all commissions and other documents that have passed the

  271
  Great Seal of England these two offices are addressed by their lawful and correct titles. Therefore, I am concerned because in this most solemn document they are not accorded their proper titles.
  If we consider the roll of the Lords, we see that it makes reference to,
  "Norfolk, Miles Francis Duke of (Earl Marshal of England)".
  If we look at the Home Office memorandum of 1906, reference is made to the Earl Marshal of England, where it will be observed that, by the terms of the Patent, the office is that of Earl Marshal of England only, and no change is effected in its powers at the Union either of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland or of Great Britain and Ireland. It is clear that reference is there made to the Earl Marshal of England.
  Next, we see that the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords considered claims for the office of the Lord Great Chamberlain of England in January 1902. If we consider the supplement to the London Gazette of 1911 for the coronation, we see that, in order, the great hereditary offices of state by the Sword of State next to the King are: the Earl Marshal of England, the Great Steward of Scotland, the Lord High Steward of Ireland, the High Constable of Scotland and the Lord Great Chamberlain of England, who comes last. It is quite clear that they have territorial designations, and those are the correct and lawful titles by which they should be referred to.
  Further, the office of Earl Marshal of Scotland is subject to attainder. The appropriate heir male of the body of the first Earl Marshal could submit a claim to reverse that attainder. Attainders have historically been reversed. I am told that it is not the policy of the Government to continue to reverse attainders, but I do not believe that it is correct for the Government to try to bind a future Parliament by making it more difficult to reverse the attainder by having only the title of Earl Marshal in this Bill and not putting in the correct title of Earl Marshal of England. I believe that that could cause complications in future.
  I have two questions. First, do the Government agree that the lawful and correct titles are those of Earl Marshal of England and Lord Great Chamberlain of England? The noble and learned Lord may need to resort to Pepper v. Hart yet again should this matter be challenged in the courts, and therefore perhaps he should assert the point publicly. Secondly, do the Government agree that the jurisdiction lies solely within England, or is this a quiet effort by the Earl Marshal via the UK Parliament to annex Scotland and Ireland?
  Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 do not affect the Government's part of the Bill but only the amendment inserted by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and I do not see how they can cause the Government a problem. I beg to move.
  12.15 a.m.
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I support the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, on these amendments which are similar to those I introduced on recommitment. When I spoke to those amendments, I received a gracious reply
  272
  from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. It is a great comfort to hear from the Benches opposite a spokesman with such a good grasp of Scottish titles and genealogy and—dare I say?—as a Welshman possibly a great understanding of the sensibilities of the history of some of our more remote areas. As a footnote, perhaps I may add that I thought I detected a nice little genuflexion to the hereditary principle in that he believed that he had learnt some of this from his father.
  I do not wish to bore your Lordships by repeating my remarks on the previous discussion. However, I pointed out that the office of the Lord Great Chamberlain of Scotland was resigned into the hands of the sovereign in 1706. But, having made inquiries, the nub of the argument I made rests on the fact that there is still, as always, a Scottish office. It was revived by a sovereign of the United Kingdom; namely Queen Anne in 1711. It is therefore perfectly capable of being further revived.
  As regards the office of Earl Marshal of Scotland, the procedures required have been explained to us by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. I do not need to go into them. However, those arguments are all concerned with the possible confusion which hereditary Officers of State of Scotland might introduce into the Bill unless Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are adopted.
  I hesitate to enter the field of lawyers. As a lay person I often use different ways of describing the same thing or the same person. But that is not the way of lawyers. However, the other argument is that in any Act of Parliament, which is a most solemn instrument, the description of an office should reflect the description contained in the Letters Patent of the sovereign creating the office. In the case of the Earl Marshal of England, I have been given a copy of the Letters Patent—I have them here—from 1672 granting that office. They are in Latin; I shall not attempt to pronounce them. However, they state clearly that the office is that of the Earl Marshal of England. They were followed by a petition in February 1732 by the then Duke of Norfolk describing himself in the instance of that petition as the Earl Marshal of England.
  I cannot at present go back that far with the office of the Lord Great Chamberlain of England, but noble Lords will be aware that there are two volumes of proceedings of the Committee for Privileges beginning in 1901 and continuing to 1902, no doubt presided over by the predecessor of the great office now occupied by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which was the office described throughout as the Lord Great Chamberlain of England.
  I believe that these arguments support the need for the amendments to be agreed to.
  The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, for a number of centuries before the 1707 Act of Union, the honour of Earl Marshal of Scotland rested with my family. Despite our Jacobite indiscretions of the '15, the '19 and the '45, we retained it until 1746, when we were attainted. The tenth and last Earl Marshal and his brother had to go abroad.

  273
  I feel therefore that the honour is now vacant in Scotland and does not attach to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed a brief word. In Committee, the noble Lord, Williams of Mostyn, said that his advice was that there was no ambiguity in the Bill. With respect to his advisers, no one who heard the immensely authoritative speech of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose on that occasion could assert that with any confidence.
  This Bill may well have to last and it would be right as a courtesy to the knowledge of my noble friend, and to the history and traditions of England and Scotland, and no disservice to the Bill, to accept the amendment to which the noble Earl has given his authoritative support. I very much hope that the Government will have the good grace to accept it.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, when we last discussed these matters, the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, had cast his net much wider and had included the Lord Great Chamberlain of Scotland as someone whose interests should be considered. We had an interesting discussion about Sir fain Moncreiffe of that Ilk being 28th hereditary Lord Chamberlain in the absence of the noble Earl who moved the amendment.
  The purpose of the amendment is to put beyond doubt the identity of the accepted Peer office holders, Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain of England, on the basis of the Weatherill compromise. There is no doubt—
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, it is not to put the matter beyond doubt. We are not in doubt as a result of the Minister's previous comments. It is in order to accord them their correct and lawful titles.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention, which is most helpful. If there is no doubt, there is no need for these amendments. They can be referred to properly and correctly in alternative ways. There are two references in other legislation to the Earl Marshal, only one of which contains the words "of England". That is Section 4, as your Lordships will readily recall, of the House of Lords Precedents Act 1539. From recollection—
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, that was when England was England and Scotland was not part of the United Kingdom, so the reference could have been only to one Earl Marshal. I cannot believe that that Act referred to Scotland.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, since it is necessarily 1539 followed by 1707, and there could not have been any ambiguity or difficulty, the words "of England" would not have been necessary at all in that context.
  The question is: do we need to alter this Bill? I am the last person here not to have a consciousness of different traditions. I am grateful to accept what the noble Duke said about my experience in Wales, although I do not accept that either Scotland or Wales are remote parts of
  274
  the United Kingdom and certainly not backward. The amendments are not incorrect, but they are not necessary and they are not of any real substance in the context of this Bill. They cannot affect precedence in Scotland, which is important; they have no relevance as to whether or not an attainder could be overturned; it is not a question of whether they are lawful or correct but of whether they are required in this Bill.
  There is no possibility of the Earl Marshal (of England) attempting to impose or extend his jurisdiction to Scotland. I know that these are important historical matters and they are important matters of description and precedence in Scotland, but they do not bite upon the content of this Bill. Therefore, not being unsympathetic—I genuinely find these issues of interest—they are not of relevance in the context of this Bill.
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may explain that we are not trying to extend the influence of the Earl Marshal of England. It is simply that if someone claims the title of Earl Marshal of Scotland there will be two Earl Marshals. There is no indication which one is referred to in the Bill.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Duke entirely mistakes my point. My reference to jurisdiction was in specific reference to the noble Earl's point, which was that unless one had the description in this Bill "Earl Marshal of England", there might be the prospect that the Earl Marshal of England might try to extend his jurisdiction to Scotland. My response was to the noble Earl's specific point that this description, or non-description, in the Bill would have no relevance in that context.
  Everyone, with or without Pepper, or Hart, or both, knows perfectly well what is referred to. It is otiose, though of historic and heraldic interest, that they be included in the Bill, but this is not a vehicle for the protection of historic heraldic interests, which are rot impeached, impugned or attacked in the slightest way in this Bill.
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I do not know what to do. I find it quite ridiculous. I presume, therefore, we will now see the references to "of England" removed from the Roll of the House of Lords and "of England" removed from all future references to these hereditary great officers of state.
  I find it quite incredible that the Government cannot get it right. This is not even in the words of their own Bill, which they produced from the Commons, but in an amendment inserted by Cross-Benchers and by agreement, so it does not even affect the position of the Government. I hear other words used strangely in this regard. People keep referring to the fact that I am "illegitimate" when I am quite legitimate here. What might be illegitimate is the fact that the wrong titles are used for two of the great officers of state. That is far more illegitimate than perhaps the fact that I may not be

  275
  democratically representative which is what is normally meant when the world "illegitimate" is used to refer to me.
  I know that sounds rather muddled. However, I do not suppose that, with the number of Government troops sitting behind the Front Bench, it is worth calling a Division. On the other hand, I feel for the sake of the Scots that I should.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down or withdraws the amendment, I find it strange that the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment. Let us suppose that by chance a spelling mistake had crept into the Bill. It would be perfectly legitimate to say that there is no ambiguity, no confusion, that it does not really matter; yet I cannot believe that a spelling mistake would not be perfectly happily corrected. What is the problem with being accurate in legislation?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the legislation is not inaccurate; nor is it ungrammatical. The only grammatical errors that I have detected have been, on occasion, in amendments moved by some noble Lords on the Benches opposite, although I have not pointed them out on every possible occasion.
  It is not a question of what is correct or incorrect. Both are correct, as Alice said, or should have said. There is no ambiguity and therefore one does not need to amend the Bill. However, I stress that it has nothing at all to do with attainders, possible revivers, historic precedence or anything to do with heraldry in Scotland. It is absolutely correct to say that it is of validity to say "The Earl Marshal" or "The Earl Marshal of England". We have chosen the phrase which is well known. Both the noble Duke and the noble Earl readily recognise this. There is no difficulty of understanding. There are alternatives. We have chosen the simpler and shorter, knowing that they would irresistibly, on those two grounds alone, commend themselves to your Lordships.
  Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, in order to help my noble friend on what he may or may not do about this, I would rather like to know the views of the noble Earl the Earl Marshal and the noble Lord the Lord Great Chamberlain. It may be relevant and helpful to know that. I certainly would not know which way to go if this was pressed to a Division. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. However, I see that the
  276
  ambiguity is not perhaps as great as is made out. I think we should find out what the noble Earl the Earl Marshal has to say about this.
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interventions. I find it absolutely astonishing that we do not even try to get legislation accurate any more. I am afraid to say that I know that if I was to go to any of the proper legal authorities—forget about heraldic; this has nothing to do with heraldry; one is the Earl Marshal "of England" and the other is the Lord Great Chamberlain "of England"—there would be no two ways about it. To describe them as anything else is inaccurate and illegitimate. That is the illegitimacy. However, I shall not win a Division so there is no point in pressing it. It is quite late enough. I find it astonishing that we try to pass laws like this in which we are historically inaccurate. However, with those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
  Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 20:
  Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
  ("() Standing orders of the House shall provide that the excepted hereditary peers shall consist of the following categories—

  (a)(i) 2 peers elected by Labour hereditary peers;

  (ii) 42 peers elected by the Conservative hereditary peers;

  (iii) 3 peers elected by the Liberal Democrat hereditary peers; and

  (iv) 28 peers elected by the Cross-bench hereditary peers;

  (b) 15 peers, elected by the whole House, from among those ready to serve as Deputy Speakers or in any other office as the House may require; and

  (c) any peer holding the office of Earl Marshal or performing the office of Lord Great Chamberlain.")

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the last amendment tonight. Since I tabled it, I have been advised that in some respects it is defective. I propose to take it away, reconsider it and possibly bring it back at a later stage.
  [Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 20A to 20D as manuscript amendments to Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
  House adjourned at half past midnight.

  Algeria and Morocco: EU Aid
  Algeria and Morocco: EU Aid
  Channel 5 "Sex and Shopping" Series
  Channel 5 "Sex and Shopping" Series
  University Collections: Protection from Sale
  University Collections: Protection from Sale
  Kosovar Refugees: Evacuation to UK
  Kosovar Refugees: Evacuation to UK
  Investors in People UK: Review
  Investors in People UK: Review
  Absinthe
  Absinthe
  Unlicensed Slaughterhouses
  Unlicensed Slaughterhouses
  Fisheries Council
  Fisheries Council
  UK Exports to EU Member States
  UK Exports to EU Member States
  Haemophiliacs Infected with Hepatitis C: Special Payments Refusal
  Haemophiliacs Infected with Hepatitis C: Special Payments Refusal
  NHS Allergy Services
  NHS Allergy Services
  ASSIST Programme
  ASSIST Programme
  Airborne Stand-Off Radar
  Airborne Stand-Off Radar
  Millennium Dome Opening: Guest List
  Millennium Dome Opening: Guest List